Ruth Benedict Ethical Relativism

Over her years of research, anthropologist Ruth Benedict has found countless evidence that proves ethics are relative, while philosopher W.T. Stace, argues against her stance and says that ethics are not relative but absolute. Benedict believes in moral or ethical relativism; ethical relativism is relative to culture at any particular age, region, and society. Then on the other hand, Stace believes in moral or ethical absolutism, which means there is only one eternally true and valid moral code for all human beings. He also goes on to say, “They are in themselves either right or wrong. What we have to do is to discover which they are.”(94.) Both sides feel very strongly about their views and have a lot to say to back up their ideas. Benedict

On an island of northwest Melanesia, Fortune describes this culture as, “a society built upon traits which we regard as beyond the border of paranoia.”(88.) In this culture everyone thinks that someone is out to get them; a prime example Fortune states is that no woman ever leaves her cooking pot for a moment untended for the fear of someone may poison it. If you were to receive a gift the typical response would be “ ‘And if you now poison me, how shall I repay you this present?’ ”(88.) Fortune describes, in this type of society a person they would consider crazy would be someone who is happy, kind, who liked to work, and who liked to be

This is a bad argument because of the word standard. Standard has two different meanings. The first meaning, which is what is usual or customary, while the second meaning is that against which things are measured. It is a matter of what people think is right as to what is actually right, respectively. This is a big difference between the two “standards.” In Benedict’s argument she does not realize she is using standard two different ways so her argument is false. A relativist would say, “Your culture says its right, then its right in their culture.” Then an absolutist would say, “Your culture may say something is right, but it can be wrong.” Stace goes on to say, “ And evidently one must conclude—though I am not aware that relativists are anxious to draw one’s attention to such unsavory but yet absolutely necessary conclusions from their creed--that cannibalism is right for people who believe in in, that human sacrifice is right for those races which practice it, and that burning widows alive was right for Hindus until the British stepped in and compelled the Hindus to behave immorally by allowing their widows to remain