Kwakiuti Indian Ethical Relativism

The module two, the Kwakiuti Indians had a custom in which a person who suffers hardship or loss may “lash back” at the situation by inflicting pain or trouble on another party. This custom, which may seem cruel to most, is acceptable to few. The justification for such a crude action can be found in ethical relativism. Ethical relativism is the theory that morality is based upon the standards of one’s own society. This would explain as to why this action of bringing pain upon others seems harsh to Americans but was socially acceptable to Kwakiuti Indians. An ethical relativist would argue that this action is socially acceptable because we can only judge morality from society to society. No society would have the exact same stance on morality but because the Kwakiuti Indians accepted this

This is because I am looking in on their custom and have not grown up in their society. This being said, the Kwakiuti Indians would not have a right to judge American customs in which they do not agree with. Furthermore, as a society, we can only judge ourselves if we have a clear understanding of how our customs came to be and affect everyone or everything else. In other words, the Kwakiuti Indians may have understood why their custom entailed the things that it did so they are the only ones that could judge their custom. I have no say so as to whether their custom was of harsh or fair nature. As Americans, we can agree that we believe in karma only we allow it to come back naturally. This could be looked upon as cruel stating that the opposing party did not mean to inflict trouble or harm but it was a coincidental side effect of a particular action. In turn, this would make Americans seem harsh for punishing an action completed in innocence. In summary, I agree with the ethical relativist in that the Kwakiuti Indians were just following a custom which was only explainable by the society so I cannot place an opinion on their