MODULE II

THE MORAL AGENT

Lesson 1 The Challenge of

Cultural Relativism
Lesson 2 The oncept of
Cultural Relativism
Lesson 3 Kohlberg's Stages of
Moral Development
 MODULE II

□
THE MORAL AGENT
A moral agent is
a person who has the
ability to discern right
from wrong and to be
held accountable for his
or her own actions.
INTRODUCTION Moral agents have a
moral responsibility not
to cause unjustified
harm.

Traditionally,
moral agency is
assigned only to those
who can be held
responsible for their
actions. Children, and
adults with certain
mental disabilities, may
have little or no capacity
to be moral agents.
Adults with full mental
capacity relinquish their
moral agency only in
extreme situations, like
being held hostage.

By expecting
people to act as moral
agents, we hold people
accountable for the
harm they cause others.

So, do
corporations have moral
agency? As artificial
intelligence develops,
will robots have moral
agency? And what
about socially
intelligent non-human
animals such as
dolphins and elephants?

Indeed, future
philosophers and legal
GECC 104a - Ethics - Module II -
scholars will need to
consider moral agency as
it applies to these
situations and others
(https://ethicsunwrapped.ute
xas.edu/glossary/moral-
agent).

( OBJECTIVES
After studying the
module, you should
be able to:

1. identify culture from

different moral codes;
2. define the concept of
cultural relativism; and
3. determine the stages
of moral development.

DIRECTIONS/
MODULE
ORGANIZER
There are three lessons in
the module. Read each
lesson carefully then
answer the
exercises/activities to
find out how much you
have benefited from it.
Work on these exercises
carefully and submit
your output to your tutor
or to the DOUS office.

In case you
encounter difficulty,
discuss this with your
tutor during the face-to-
face meeting. If not
contact your tutor at the
DOUS office.

Good luck and

happy reading!I

GECC 104a - Ethics - Module II -

Lesson 1

w THE CHALLENGE OF CULTURAL

RELATIVISM

Morality in every society, and is a convenient term for socially

approved habits.
- RUTH BENEDICT, PATTERNS OF CULTURE (1934)

Different Cultures Have Different Moral Codes

Darius, a king of ancient Persia, was intrigued by the variety of
culture he met in his travels. He had found, for example, that the
Callantians, who live in India, ate the bodies of their dead fathers. The
Greeks, of course, did not do that - the Greeks practiced cremation and
regarded the funeral pyre as the natural and fitting way to dispose of the
dead. Darius thought that a sophisticated outlook should be appreciated the
differences between cultures. One day, to teach this lesson, he summoned
some Greeks who happened to be at his court and asked what it would take
from them to eat the bodies of their dead fathers. They were shocked, as
Darius knew they would be, and replied that no amount of money could
persuade them to do such a thing. Then Darius called in some Callantians
and, while the Greeks listened, asked them it what take for them to burn
their fathers' bodies. The Callantians were horrified and told Darius not to
speck of such things.

This story, recounted by Herodotus in his History, illustrates a

recurring theme in the literature of social science: different cultures have
different moral codes. What is thought right within one group may horrify
the members of another group, and vice versa. Should we eat the bodies of
the dead or burn them? If you were a Greek, one answer would seem
obviously correct; but if you were a Callantians, the other answer would
seem certain.

GECC 104a - Ethics - Module II -

 There are many such examples. Consider the Eskimos of the early and
mid-20th century. The Eskimos are the native people of Alaska, Northern
Canada, Greenland, and north-eastern Siberia, in Asiatic Russia. Today,
none historically referred to that scattered Arctic population. Prior to the
20th -century, the outside world knew little about them. Then explorers
began to bring back strange tales.

The Eskimos lived in small settlements, separated by great distances,

and their customs turned out to be different from ours. The men often had
more than one wife, and they would share their wives with guest, lending
them out for the night as a sign of hosp;tality. Moreover, within a
community, a dominant male might demand and get regular sexual access to
other men's wives. The women, however, were free to break these
arrangements simply by leaving their husbands and taking up with new
partners-free, that is, so long as their former husbands chose not to make
too much trouble. All in all, the Eskimo custom of marriage was a volatile
practice that bore little resemble to our custom.

But it was not only their marriages and sexual practices that were
different. The Eskimos also seemed to have less regard for human life.
Infanticide, for example, was common. Knud Rasmussen, an early explorer,
reported that he met one woman who had borne 20 children but had killed
10 of them at birth. Female babies, he found, were especially likely to be
killed, and this was permitted at the parents' discretion, with no social
stigma attached. Moreover, when elderly family members became too
feeble, they were left out in the snow to die. In Eskimo society, there
seemed to be remarkably little respect for life.

Most of us would find these Eskimo customs completely immoral. Our

own way of living seems so natural right that we can hardly conceive of
living so differently. When we hear of such things, we tend to categorize
the other people as "backward" or primitive". But to anthropologist, the
Eskimos did not seem unusual. Since the time of Herodotus, enlightened
observers have known that conceptions of right and wrong different culture
to culture. If we assume that our ethical ideas will be shared by all cultures,
we are merely being naive.

fi:$ LEARNING ACTIVITY

How Ethical Are You?

Instruction: In the space at the right of each statement, mark a O (zero) if

you strongly disagree, a 1 if you disagree, a 2 if you agree, and a 3 if you
strongly agree.

1. Take home quiz or examination is acceptable in answering essay

questions or case analysis in Political Science. _
2. It is sometimes necessary to use mobile cell phones in research work
during class hours especially when the student wants to verify what
the teache·r has mention in the conduct of his/her lecture.

3. The learning environment in teaching in Political Science must at all

times democratic and motivating. _
4. A political science student writes an article about the corrupt
practices of justice in the Supreme Court. _
5. A student activist attempts to influence other students to stage a
strike in front of the campus against their Professor in Political
Science on the ground of bias and favouritism in giving
grades. _

How Ethical You Are?

Many situations in day-to-day business are not simple right-or-wrong

questions, but rather fall into a grey area. To demonstrate the perplexing
array of moral dilemmas faced by 20th-century Americans, here is a "non

GECC 104a - Ethics - Module II -

scientific" test for slippage.... Don't expect to score high. That is not
purpose. But give it a try, and see how you stack up.
(In the space at the right of each statement, mark a O (zero) if you strongly
disagree, a 1 if you disagree, a 2 if you agree, and a 3 if you strongly agree.)

1. Employees should not be expected to inform on their peers for

wrong-doings.
2. There are times when a manager must overlook contract and safety
violations in order to get on with the job.
3. It is not always possible to keep accurate expense account records;
therefore, it is sometimes necessary to give approximate figures.
4. There are times when it is necessary to withhold embarrassing
information from one's superior.
5. We should do what our mangers suggest, though we may have
doubts about its being the right thing to do.
6. It is sometimes necessary to conduct personal business on company
time.
7. Sometimes it is good psychology to set goals somewhat above
normal if it will help to obtain a greater effort from the sales force.
8. It would quote a "hopeful" shipping date in order to get the order.
9. It is proper to use the company WATS line for personal calls as long
as it's not in company use.
10.Management must be goal-oriented; therefore the end usually
justifies the means
11. If it takes heavy entertainment and twisting a bit of company policy
to win a large contract, I would authorize it.
12. Exceptions to company policy and procedure are a way of life .
13.Inventory controls should be designed to report "under ages" rather
than "overages" in goods received.
14. Occasional use of company's copier for personal or community
activities is acceptable.
15. Taking home company property (pencils, paper, tape, etc.) for
personal use is an accepted fringe benefit.

GECC 104a - Ethics - Module II -

Lesson 2

III THE CONCEPT OF CULTURAL

RELATIVISM

CULTURAL RELATIVISM
To many people, this observation
"Different cultures have different moral
codes" seems like the key to understanding
morality. The idea of universal truth in ethics,
they say, is a myth. The customs of different
societies are all exist. To say that a custom is
"correct" or "incorrect" would imply that we can
judge that custom by some independent
standard of right and wrong. But no such
standard exists, they say; every standard is
culture-bound. The sociologist William Graham
Sumner, writing in 1906, put it like this:
The "right" way is the way the
ancestors used and which has been
handed down . • . The notion of right
is in the folkways. It is not outside of
them, of independent origin, and
brought to test them. In the folkways,
whatever is right. This is because
they are traditional, and therefore
contain in themselves the authority of
the ancestral ghosts. When we come
to the folkways we are at the end of
our analysis.

This line of thought, more than any

other, has persuaded people to be sceptical
about ethics. Cultural Relativism, as it has
been called, challenges our belief in the

GECC 104a - Ethics - Module II -

objectiv different moral codes.
ely and 2. The moral codes of a society determines
univers what is right with =in that society; that is, if
ality of the moral code of a society says that a
moral certain action is right, then that action is
truth. It right, at least within that society.
says, in
effect,
that
there is
no such
thing as
univers
al truth
in
ethics;
they are
only the
various
cultural
codes,
and
nothing
more.

The
following
claims
have all
been
made by
cultural
relativis
m:
1. Differ
ent
societ
ies
have
GECC 104a - Ethics - Module II -
3. There is no objective standard that can be used to judge one society's
code as better than another's. There are no moral truths that hold for all
people at all times.
4. The moral code of our own society has no special status; it is but one
among many.
5. It is arrogant for us to judge other cultures. We should always be
tolerant of them.

These five propositions may seem to go together, but they are

independent of one another - some may be true while others are false.
Indeed, two of the propositions appear to be inconsistent with each other.
The second says that right and wrong are determined by the norms of a
society; the fifth says that we should always be tolerant of other cultures.
But what if the norms of society favor intolerance? For example, when the
Nazi army invaded Poland on September 1, 1939, thus beginning World War
II, this was an intolerant action of the first order. But what if it was in line
with Nazi ideals? A cultural relativist, it seems, cannot criticize the Nazi for
being intolerant, if all they're doing is following their own moral code.

Given that cultural relativists take pride in their tolerance, it would

be ironic if their theory actually supported the intolerance of warlike
societies. However, it need not do that. Properly understood, Cultural
Relativism holds that the norms of a culture reign supreme within the
bounds of the culture itself. Thus, once the German soldiers entered
Poland, they become bound by the norms of Polish society - norms that
obviously excluded the mass slaughter of innocent Poles. "When in Rome,"
the old saying goes, "do as the Romans do." Cultural relativists agree.

The Cultural Differences Argument

Cultural Relativist often employs a certain forms of argument. They
begin with facts about cultures and end up drawing a conclusion about
morality. Thus, they invite us to accept this reasoning:

GECC 104a - Ethics • Module II·

 1) The Greeks believed it was wrong to eat the dead, whereas the
Callantians believed it was right to eat the dead.
2) Therefore, eating the dead is neither objectively right nor objectively
wrong. It is merely a matter of opinion, which varies from culture to
culture.
Or:
1) The Eskimos saw nothing wrong with infanticide, whereas
Americans believe infanticide is immoral.
2) 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. They

are both examples of a mere general argument, which says:

1) Different cultures have different moral codes.

2) Therefore, there is no objective "truth" in morality. Right and wrong
are only matters of opinion, and opinions vary from culture to
culture.
We may call this the Cultural Difference Argument. To many people, it is
persuasive. But it is a good argument - is it sound? It is not. For an argument
to be sound, its premises must all be true, and the conclusion must follow
logically from them. Here, the problem is that the conclusion does not
follow from the premise - that is, even if the premise is true, the conclusion
might still be false. The premise concerns what people believe - in some
societies, people believe one thing; in other societies, people believe
something else. The conclusion, however, concerns what really is the
case. The sort of conclusion does not minology; this means that the
argument is invalid.

Consider again the example of the Greeks and Callantians. The Greeks
believed it was wrong to eat the dead; the Callantians believed it was right.
Does it follow, from the mere fact that they disagreed, that there is no

GECC 104a - Ethics - Module II

·
objective truth in the matter? No, it does not follow; it could be that the
practice was objectively right (or wrong) and that one of them was simply
mistaken.

To make the point clearer, consider a different matter. In some

societies, people believe the earth is flat. In other societies, such as our
own, people believe that the earth is spherical. Does it follow from the
mere fact that people disagree, that there is no "objective truth" in
geography? Of course not; we would ever draw such a conclusion, because
we realize that the members of some societies might simply be wrong.
There is no reason to think that if the world is round everyone must know it.
Similarly, there is no reason to think that if there is moral truth everyone
must know it. The cultural Difference Argument tries to derive a substantive
conclusion about a subject from the mere fact that people disagree. But this
is impossible.

The point should not be misunderstood. We are not saying that the
conclusion of the argument is false; Cultural Relativism could still be true.
The point is that the conclusion does not follow from the premise. This
means that the Cultural Differences Argument is invalid. Thus, the argument
fails.

What Follows from Cultural Relativism

Even if the Cultural Differences Argument is unsound, Cultural Relativism

might still be true. What would follow if it were true?

In the passage quoted earlier, William Graham Summer states the

essence of Cultural Relativism. He says that there is no measure of right and
wrong other than the standards of one's society: "The notion of right is in
the folkways. It is not outside of them, of independent origin, and brought
to test them. In the folkways, whatever is, is right." Suppose we took this
serious. What would be some of the consequences?

GECC 104a - Eth;cs - Module II -

 1. We could no longer say that the customs of other societies are
morally inferior to our own. This, of course, is one of the main points
stressed by Cultural Relativism. We would have to stop condemning
other societies merely because they are "different." So long as we
concentrate on certain example, such as the funerary practices of the
Greeks and Callantians, this attitude may seem to be enlightened.
However, we would also be barred from criticizing other, less benign
practices. For example, the Chinese government has a long history of
repressing political dissent within its own borders. At any given time,
thousands of political prisoners in China are doing hard labor, and in
the Tiananmen Square episode of 1989, Chinese troops slaughtered
hundreds, if not thousands, of peaceful protesters. Cultural
Relativism would preclude us from saying that the Chinese
government's policies of oppression are wrong. We could not even say
that a society that respects free speech is better than Chinese
society, for that would also imply a universal standard of comparison.
The failure to condemn these practices does not seem enlightened;
on the contrary, political oppression seems wrong wherever it occurs.
Nevertheless, if we accept Cultural Relativism, we have to regard
such social practices as immune from criticism.

2. We could no longer criticize to code of our own society. Cultural

Relativism suggests a simple test for determining what is right and
what is wrong: all we need to do is ask whether the action is in line
with the code of the society in question. Suppose a resident of India
wonders whether her country's caste system - a system of rigid social
hierarchy - is moral correct. All she has to do is ask whether this
system conforms to her society's moral code. If it does, there is
nothing to worry about, at least from a moral point of view.
This implication of Cultural Relativism is distributing because
few of us think that our society's code is perfect - we can think of
ways in which it might be improved. Moreover, we can think of ways
in which we might learn from other cultures. Yet Cultural Relativism
stops us from criticizing our own society's code, and it bars us from

GECC 104a - Ethics - Module II -

 seeing ways in which other cultures might be better. After all, if right
and wrong are relative to culture, this must be true for our culture,
just as it is for other cultures.

3. The idea of moral progress is called into doubt. We think that at

least some social changes are for the better. Throughout most
Western history, the place of women in society was narrowly defined.
Women could not own property; they could not vote or hold political
office; and they were under the almost absolute control of their
husbands or fathers. Recently, much of this has changed, and most
people think of it as progress.
But if Cultural Relativism is correct, can we legitimately view
this as progress? Progress means replacing the old ways with new and
improved ways. But by what standard do we judge the new ways as
better? If the old ways conformed to the standards of their time,
then Cultural Relativism would not judge them by our standards.
Sexist 19th -century society was a different society from the one we
have now.to say that we have made progress implies that present-
day society is better - just the sort of transcultural judgement that
Cultural Relativism forbids.
Our ideas about social reform will also have to be
reconsidered. Reformers such as Martin Luther King, Jr., have sought
to change their societies for the better. But according to Cultural
Relativism, there is only one way to improve a society: to make it
better match its own ideals. After all, the society's ideals are the
standard by which reforms is assessed. No one, however, may
challenge the ideals themselves, for they are by definition correct.
According to Cultural Relativism, then, the idea of social reform
makes sense only in this limited way.
These three consequences of Cultural Relativism have led
many thinkers to reject it. Slavery, they say, is wrong wherever it
occurs, and one's own society can make fundamentals moral
progress. Because Cultural Relativism implies that these judgements
make no sense, it cannot be right.

GECC 104a - - Module II -

Ethics
Why There is Less Disagreement That It Seems
Cultural Relativism starts by observing that cultures differ
dramatically in their views of right and wrong. But how much do they really
differ? It is true that there are differences, but it is easy to exaggerate
them. Often, when we examine what seems to be a big difference, we find
that the cultures differ less than we thought.

Consider a culture in which people it is wrong to eat cows, this may

even be a poor culture, in which there is not enough food; still the cows are
not be touched. Such a society would appear to have values very different
from our own. But does it? We have not yet asked why these people will not
eat cows. Suppose they believe that after death the souls of humans
inhabit the bodies of animals, especially cows, so that a cow many be
someone's grandmother. Shall we say that their values are different from
ours? No; the difference lies elsewhere. The difference is in our belief
systems, not in our values. We agree that we shouldn't eat Grandma; we
disagree about whether the cow could be Grandma.

The point is that many factors work together to produce the customs
of a society. Not only are the society's values important, but so are its
religious beliefs, its factual beliefs, and its physical environment. We cannot
conclude that, because customs differ, values differ. The difference in
customs may be due to something else. Thus, there may be less
disagreement about values that there appears to be.

Consider again the Eskimos, who killed perfectly healthy infants,

especially girls. We do not approve of such things; in our society, a parent
who kills a baby will be locked up. Thus, there appears to be a great
difference in the values of our two cultures. But suppose we ask why the
Eskimos did this. The explanation is not that they lacked respect for human
life or did not love their children. An Eskimos family would always protect
its babies if conditions permitted. But the Eskimos lived in a harsh
environment, where food was in short supply. To quote an old Eskimo

GECC 104a - - Module II ·

Ethics
saying: "life is hard, and the margin of safety small." A family may want to
nourish its babies but be unable to do so.

As in many traditional societies, Eskimo mothers would nurse their

infants over a much longer period than mothers in our culture - for four
years and perhaps even longer. So, even in the best of times, one mother
could sustain very few children. Moreover, the Eskimos were nomadic;
unable to farm in the harsh northern climate, they had to move about in
search of food. Infants had to be carried, and a mother could carry only one
baby in her parka as she travelled and went about her outdoor work.
Finally, the Eskimos lacked birth control, so unwanted pregnancies were
common.

Infant girls were more readily disposed of for two reasons. First, in
Eskimo society, the males were the primary food providers they were the
hunters and food was scarce. Infant boys were thus better protected.
Second, the hunters suffered a high casualty rate, so the men who died
prematurely far outnumbered the woman who died young. If male and
females infants had survived in equal numbers, then the female adult
population would have greatly outnumbered the male adult population.
Examining the available statistics, one writer concluded that "were it not
for female infanticide ... there would be approximately one-and-a-half
times as many females in the average Eskimo local group as there are food
producing males."

So, among the Eskimos, infanticide did not signal a fundamentally

different attitude toward children. Instead, it arose from the recognition
that drastic measures were needed to ensure the family's survival. Even
then, however, killing the baby was not the first option considered.
Adoption was common; childless couples were especially happy to make a
fertile couple's " surplus. " Killing was last resort. I emphasize this in order
to show that the raw data of anthropology can be misleading; it can make
the differences in values between cultures appear greater than they are.
The Eskimos' values were not all that different from our own. It is only that
life forced choices upon them that we do not have to make.

GECC 104a - - Module II -

Ethics
Some Values Are Shared by All Cultures
It should not be surprising that the Eskimos were protective of their
children. How could they not be? Babies are helpless and cannot survive
without extensive care. If a group did not protect its young, the young
would not survive, and the older members of the group would not be
replaced. After a while, the group would die out. This means that any
culture that continues to exist must be the exception rather than the rule.

Similar reasoning shows that other values must be more or less

universal. Imagine what it would be like for a society to place no value on
truth telling. When one person spoke to another, there would be
presumption that she was telling the truth, for she could just as easily be
lying. Within that society, there would be no reason to pay attention to
what anyone says. If I want to know what time it is, why should I bother
asking anyone, if lying is commonplace? Communication would be extremely
difficult, if not impossible, in such a society. And because societies cannot
exist without communication among their members, society would become
impossible. It follows that every must value truthfulness. There may, of
course, be situations in which lying is thought to be okay. No matter. The
society will still value honesty.

Consider another example. Could a society exist in which there was

no prohibition against murder? What would this be like? Suppose people
were free to kill one another at will, and no one disapproved. In such a
"society," no one could feel safe. Everyone would have to avoid other
people as much as possible. This would result in individuals trying to
become self-sufficient after all; associating with others would be dangerous.
Society on any large scale would collapse. Of course, people might band
together in smaller groups where they could feel safe. But notice what this
means: they would be forming smaller societies that did knowledge a rule
against murder. The prohibition against murder, then, is necessary feature
of society.

GECC 104a - - Module II

Ethics -
 There is a general point here, namely, that there are some moral
rules that all societies must embrace, because those rules are necessary for
society to exist. The rules against lying and murder are two examples. And,
in fact, we do find these rules in force in all cultures. Cultures may differ in
what they regard as legitimate exceptions to the rules, but this
disagreement exists against a broad background of agreement. Therefore, it
is mistake to overestimate the amount of difference between cultures. Not
every moral rule can vary from society to society.

Cultural Issues

In 1996, a 17 year-old named Fauziya Kassindja arrived at Newark

International Airport in New Jersey and ask for asylum. She had fled her
native country of Togo, in West Africa, to escape what people there call
"excision." Excision is a permanently disfiguring procedure. It is sometimes
called "female circumcision," but it bears little resemblance to male
circumcision. In the Western media, it is often referred to as "female
genital mutilation."

According to the World Health Organization, excision is practiced in

28 African nations, and about 120 million females have been painfully
excised. Sometimes, excision is part of an elaborate tribal ritual, performed
in small villages, and girls look forward to it because it signals their
acceptance into the adult world. Other times, the practice is carried out in
cities on young women who desperately resist.

Fauziya Kassindja was the youngest of five daughter. Her father, who
owned a successful trucking business, was opposed to excision, and he was
able to defy the tradition because of his wealth. His first four daughters
were married without being mutilated. But when Fauziya was 16, he
suddenly died. She then came under the authority of her aunt, who
arranged a marriage for her and prepared to have her excised. Fauziya was
terrified, and her mother and older sister helped her escape.
In America, Fauziya was imprisoned for nearly 18 months while the
authorities decided what to do with her. During this time, she was subjected

GECC 104a - - Module II

Ethics -
to humiliating strip searches, denied medical treatment for her asthma, and
generally treated like a criminal. Finally, she was granted asylum, but not
before her case aroused a great controversy. The controversy was not about
her treatment in America, but about how we should regard the cultural
practices of other peoples. A series of articles in The New York Times
encourages the idea that excision is barbaric and should be condemned.
Other observers were reluctant to be so judgmental. Live and let live, they
said; after all, our culture probably seems just as strange to other peoples.

Suppose we are inclined to say that excision is bad. Would we merely

be imposing the standards of our own culture? If Cultural Relativism is
correct, that is all we can do, for there is no culture-independent moral
standard to appeal to. But is that true?

Cultural Independence Standard

Excision is bad in many ways. It is painful and results in the

permanent loss of sexual pleasure. Its short-term effects can include
haemorrhage, tetanus and septicaemia. Sometimes the woman dies. Its
long-term effects can include chronic infection, scars that hinder walking,
and continuing pain.

Why, then, has it become a widespread social practice? It is not easy

to say. The practice has no obvious social benefits. Unlike Eskimo
infanticide, it is not necessary for group survival. Nor is it a matter of
religion. Excision is practiced by groups from various religions, including
Islam and Christianity.

Nevertheless, a number of reasons are given in its defence. Women

who are incapable of sexual pleasure are less likely to be promiscuous; thus,
there will be fewer unwanted pregnancies in unmarried women. Moreover,
wives for whom sex is only a duty are less likely to cheat on their husbands;
and because they are not thinking about sex, they will be more attentive to
the needs, of their husbands and children. Husbands, for their part, are said
to enjoy sex more with wives who have been excised. Unexcised women,
the men feel, are unclear and immature.

It would be easy, and perhaps a bit arrogant, to ridicule these

arguments. But notice an important feature of them: they try to justify
excision by showing that excision is beneficial - men, women, and their
families are said to be better off when women are excised. Thus, we might
approach the issue by asking whether this is true: is excision, on the whole,
helpful or harmful?

In fact, this is a standard that might reasonable be used in thinking

about any social practice: Does the practice promote or hinder the welfare
of the people affected by it? But this looks like just the sort of independent
moral standard the Cultural Relativism says cannot exist. It is a single
standard that may be brought to bear in judging the practices of any
culture, at any time, including our own. Of course, people will not usually
see this principle as being "brought in from the outside" to judge them,
because all cultures value human happiness.

Why, Despite All This, Thoughtful People May Be Reluctant to

Criticize Other Cultures. Many people who are horrified by excision are
nevertheless reluctant to condemn it, for three reasons. First, there is an
understandable nervousness about interfering in the social customs of other
peoples. Europeans and their cultural descendants in America have a
shameful history of destroying native culture in the same of Christianity and
enlightenment. Because of this, some people refuse to criticize other
cultures, especially cultures that resemble those that were wronged in the
past. There is a difference, however between (a) judging a cultural practice
to be deficient and (b) thinking that we should announce that fact, apply
diplomatic pressure, and send in the troops. The first is just a matter of
trying to see the world clearly, form a moral point of view. The second is
something else entirely. Sometimes it may be right to "do something about
it," but often it will not be.

GECC 104a - Ethics - Module II -

 Second, people may feel, rightly enough, that they should be tolerant
of other cultures. Tolerance is, no doubt, a virtue - a tolerant person can
live in peace with those who see things differently. But nothing about
tolerance requires us to say that all beliefs, all religions, and all social
practices are equally admirable, on the contrary if we did not think that
some things were better than others, there would be nothing for us to
tolerate.

Finally, people may be reluctant to judge because they do not want

to express contempt for the society being criticized. But again, this is
misguided: To condemn a particular practice is not to say that the culture
on the whole is contemptible or is inferior to any other culture. The culture
could have many admirable features. In fact, we should expect this to be
true of most human societies - they are mixtures of good and bad practices.
Excision happens to be one of the bad ones.

Five Tenets of Cultural Relativism

1. The moral code of a society determines what is right within that

society; that is if the moral code of a society says that a certain
action is right, then that action is right, at least within that society.
Here we must bear in mind the difference between what a society
believes about morals and what is really true. The moral code of a
society is closely tied to what people in that society believe to be right.
However, that code, and those people, can be in error. Earlier, we
considered the example of excision - a barbaric practice endorsed by
many societies. Consider three more examples, all of which involve the
mistreatment of women:
• In 2002, an unwed mother in Nigeria was sentenced to be
stoned to death for having had sex out of wedlock. It is unclear
whether Nigerian values, on the whole, approved of this
verdict, since it was later overturned by a higher court.
However, it was overturned partly to appease the international
community. When the Nigerians themselves heard the verdict

GECC 104a - Ethics - Module II -

 being read out in the courtroom, the crowd shouted out their
approval.
• In 2005, a woman from Australia was convicted of trying to
smuggle nine pounds of marijuana into Indonesia. For that
crime, she was sentenced to 20 years in prison - an excessive
punishment. Under Indonesian law, she might even have
received a death sentence.
• In 2007, a woman was gang-raped in Saudi Arabia. When she
complained to the police, the police discovered in the course
of their investigation that she had recently been along with a
man she was not related to. For this crime, she was sentenced
to ninety lashes. When she appealed the conviction, this
angered the judges, and they increased her sentence to 200
lashes plus a six months prison term. Eventually, the Saudi king
pardoned her, though he said that he supported the sentence
she had received.

Cultural Relativism holds, in effect, that societies are morally infallible -

in other words, that the morals of culture can never be wrong. But when we
see that societies can and do endorse grave injustice, we can see that
societies, like their members, can be in need of moral improvement.

3. There is no objective standard that can be used to judge one

society's code as better than another's. There are no moral truths
that hold for all people at all times.
It is difficult to think of ethical principles that hold for all people at all
times. However, if we are to criticize the practice of slavery, or stoning, or
genital mutilation, and if such practices are really and truly wrong, then we
must appeal to principles that are not tethered to one society's peculiar
outlook. Earlier I suggested one such principle: that it always matters
whether a practice promotes or hinders the welfare of the people affected
by it.

GECC 104a - - Module II -

Ethics
 4. The moral code of our society has no special status; it is but one
among many.
It is true that the moral code of our society has no special status. After all,
our society has no heavenly halo around its borders; our values do not have
any special standing just because we happen to believe them. However, to
say that the moral code of one's ow_n societ y "is merely one among many"
seems to deny the possibility that one moral code might be better or worse
than some others. Whether the moral code of one's own society "is merely
one among many" is, in fact, an open question. That code might be one of
the best; it might be one of the worst.

5. It is arrogant for us to judge other cultures. We should always be

tolerant of them. There is much truth in this, but the point is
overstated. We are often arrogant when we criticize other cultures,
and tolerance is general a good thing. However, we shouldn't
tolerate everything. Human societies have done terrible things, and it
is a mark of progress when we can say that those things are in the
past.

Jl5 LEARNING ACTIVITY

1. Discuss the concept of cultural relativity?
2. What is corporate culture?
3. Give and discuss the five tenets of cultural relativism

GECC 104a - Ethics - Module II -

Lesson 3

m KOHLBERG'S STAGES OF MORAL

DEVELOPMENT

r
LEVEL 1 ' r
LEVEL 1
" r
-
, ,
,-,
Pre conventional Pre Pr
Morality conventional
Morality
\.. \. \.

,
r r r
LEVEL 2 ' Stage 3 Stage 4 """"
- -,,
Int erpersonal: behaviour driven Authority: behaviour driven
Conventional by obeying
by social approval
Morality
authority and
\.. \.. \..

r r r
LEVEL 3 " Stage 5 " Stage 6 """"
-
, ,
.,,
Post - conventional Social contract: Un
Morality behaviour driven be
by balance of int
social order and
,) \..
\.. ,) \.._

GECC 104a - Ethics - Module II -

Here are the elements of a model for making moral decisions:
1. Gather the Facts
Frequently ethical dilemmas can be resolved simply by clarifying
the facts of the case in question. In those cases that prove to be more
difficult, gathering the facts is the essential first step prior to any
ethical analysis and reflection on the case. In analysing a case, we want
to know the available facts at hand as well as any facts currently not
known but that need to be ascertained. Thus one asking not only "What
do we know?" but also "What do we need to know?" in order to make an
intelligent ethical decision.

2. Determine the Ethical Issues

The ethical issues are stated in terms of competing interests of
goods. It's these conflicting interests that actually make for an ethical
dilemma. The issues should be presented in a versus
format in order to reflect the interests that are colliding ·in a
particular ethical dilemma. For example, in business ethics there is often
a conflict between the right of a firm to make a fair profit and its
obligation to the community. In this case, that obligation pertains to the
environment.

3. What Principles Have a Bearing on the Case?

In any ethical dilemma, there are certain moral values or
principles that are central to the conflicting positions being taken. It is
critical to identify these prfnciples, and in some cases, to determine
whether some principles are to be weighted more heavily. There may
other principles that speak to the case that come from other sources.
There may be supplemental the biblical principles that come into play
here. The principles that come out of your sense of mission and calling
are also important to consider.

4. List the Alternatives

Part of the creative thinking involved in resolving an ethical
dilemma involves coming up with various alternative courses of
action.

GECC 104a - - Module II -

Ethics
 Although there will be some alternatives that you will rule out without
much thought, in general the more alternatives that are listed, the
better the chance that your list will include some high -quality ones. In
addition, you may come up with some very creative alternatives that
you had not considered before.

5. Compare the Alternatives With the Principles

At this point, the task is one of eliminating alternatives according
to the moral principles that have a bearing on the case. In many
instances, the case will be resolved at this point, since the principles
will eliminate all alternatives except one. In fact, the purpose of this
comparison is to see if there is a clear decision that can be made without
further deliberation. If a clear decision is not forthcoming, then the next
part in the model must be considered at the least, some of the
alternatives may be eliminated by this step of comparison.

6. Weigh the Consequences

If the principles do not yield a clear decision, then a consideration
of the consequences of the remaining available alternatives is in order.
Both positive and negative consequences are to be considered. They
should be informally weighed, sine some positive consequences are more
beneficial than others and some negative consequences are more
detrimental than others.

7. Make a Decision
Deliberation cannot go on forever. At some point, a decision must
be made. Realize that one common elements in ethical dilemmas as that
there are no easy and painless solutions to them. Frequently the decision
that is made is one that involves the least number of problems or
negative consequences, not one that is devoid of them.

GECC 104a - Ethics - Module II

-
Moral Dilemma: Cases
You have a job as network administrator for a company that also employs
your best friend's husband. One day, your best friend's husband sends you a
message asking you to release an email from quarantine. This requires you
to open the email, at which point you discover that it's correspondence
between this guy and his secret lover. After releasing the email, you find
yourself in a pickle. Your instinct is to tell your best friend about his
husband's infidelities, but divulging the contents of company emails is
against company policy and you could lose your job. Once it becomes plain
that your best friend found out about his cheating husband through a
company email, all trails will inevitably lead to you as the leak. Do you tell
him about the indiscretion?

LEARNING ACTIVITY

1. What are the stages of moral development? Discuss each.

2. Cite one example based from your experience and apply the different
stages of moral development.

SUMMATIVE TEST

CASE ANALYSIS
You've been on a cruise for two days when there's an accident that forces everyone
on board to abandon ship. During the evacuation, one of the boats is damaged,
leaving it with a hole that fills it with water. You figure that with 10 people in the
boat, you can keep the boat afloat by having nine people scoop the filling water
out by hand for 10 minutes while the 10th person rests. After that person's 10-
minute rest, he or she will get back to work while another person rests, and so on.
This should keep the boat from sinking long enough for a rescue team to find you as
long as it happens within five hours. You're taking your first brake when you notice
your best friend in a sound lifeboat with only nine people in it and he beckons you
to swim over and join them so you won't have to keep bailing out water. If you

GECC 104a - Ethics - Module II -

leave the people in the sinking boat, they will only be able to stay afloat for two
hours instead of five, decreasing their chance of being rescued, but securing yours.
What do you do?

l ID MODULE SUMMARY

Cultural Relativism
So far, in discussing Cultural Relativism, I have dwelt mostly on its
shortcomings. I have said that it rests on an unsound argument, that it has
implausible consequences, and that it suggests greater moral disagreement
than exists. This all adds up to a rather thorough repudiation of the theory.
Nevertheless, you may have the feeling that all is a little unfair. The theory
must have something going for it - why else has it been so influential? In
fact, I think there is something right about Cultural Relativism, and there
are two lessons we should learn from it.

First, Cultural Relativism warns us, quite rightly, about the danger of
assuming that all our preferences are based on some absolute rational
standard. They are not. Many (but not all) of our practices are merely
peculiar to our society, and it is easy to lose sight of that fact. In reminding
us of it, the theory does us a service.

Funerary practices are one example. The Callantians, according to

Herodotus, were "men who eat their fathers" - a shocking idea, to us at
least. But eating the flesh of the dead 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." Perhaps this is how the Callantians saw
it. On this way of thinking, burying the dead could be seen as an act of
rejection, and burning the corpse as positively scornful. Of course, we may
feel a visceral repugnance at the idea of eating human fl esh. But so what?
This repugnance may be, as the relativists say, only a reflection of our own
society.

GECC 104a - - Module II -

Ethics
 There are many other matters that we tend to think of in terms of
right and wrong that are really nothing more than social conventions.
Consider monogamous marriage. Why must we lock ourselves into just one
romantic relationship? Some people practice "Polyamory," which is having
more than one loving partner, with the consent of everyone involved.
Polyamory includes group marriages (such as "quads," involving four
people), open relationships, networks of interconnecting relationships, and
so on. Some of these arrangements might work better than others, but this
is not really a matter of morality. If four people want to live together and
functions as a single family, with love flowing from each to each, there is
nothing morally wrong with that. But most people in our society would be
horrified by it.

Or consider modesty of dress. During the 2004 Super Bowl halftime

show, Justin Timberlake ripped off part of Janet Jackson's costume, thus
exposing one of her breasts to the audience. CBS quickly cut to an aerial
view of the stadium, but it was too late. Half of million viewers complained,
and the federal government fined CBS $550,000. In America, a publicly
exposed breast is considered scandalous. In other cultures, however, such
displays are common. Objectively speaking, the display of a woman's breast
is neither right nor wrong. Cultural Relativism begins with the valuable
insight that many of our practices are like this - they are only cultural
products. Then it goes wrong by inferring that, because some practices are
like this, all of them must be.

The second lesson has to do with keeping an open mind. In the course
of growing up, each of us has acquired some strong feelings: we have
learned to think of some types of conduct as acceptable, and we have
learned to reject others. Occasionally, we may find those feelings
challenged. For example, we may have been taught that homosexuality is
immoral, and we may feel uncomfortable around gay people and see them
as alien and prevented. But then someone suggests that this may be
prejudice; that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality; that gay people

GECC 104a - Ethics - Module II -

are just people, like anyone else, who happen to be attracted to members
of the same sex. Because we feel so strongly about this, we may find it hard
to take this line of reasoning seriously.

Cultural Relativism provides an antidote for this kind of dogmatism.

When he tells the story of the Greeks and Callantians, Herodotus adds:
For if anyone, no matter who, were given the opportunity of
choosing from amongst all the nations of the world the set of beliefs which
he thought best, he would inevitably, after careful consideration of their
relative merits, choose that of his own country. Everyone without
exception believes his own native customs, and the religion he was brought
up in, to be the best.

Realizing this can help broaden our minds. We can see that our
feelings are not necessarily perceptions of the truth - they may be nothing
more than the result of cultural conditioning. Thus when we hear it
suggested that some element of our social code is not really the best, and
we find ourselves resisting the suggestion, we might stop and remember
this. Then we will be more open to discovering the truth, whatever it might
be.

We can understand the appeal of Cultural Relativism, then, despite

its shortcomings. It is an attractive theory because it is based on a genuine
insight: that many of the practices and attitudes we find natural are really
only cultural products. Moreover, keeping this thought firmly in view is
important if we want to avoid arrogance and keep an open mind. These are
important points, not to be taken lightly. But we can accept them without
accepting the whole theory.

GECC 104a - - Module II -

Ethics