Running head: MORDIDAS
1
Mordidas Anonymous University of the People
MORDIDAS
2
Mordidas
This week we explore the issue of cultural relativism and how it applies to certain
situations. The situation we will address here is that of “mordidas”, the practice of police officers in Mexico City supplementing their income through an institutional system of bribery (Brusseau, 2012). What are the ethical issues around this system, and how does cultural relativism apply?
What is cultural relativism, and how does the vision of ethics associated with it diverge from the traditional ethical theories?
Cultural relativism is the ethical theory that there are no universal ethics; rather, ethics should be adapted to the culture one finds themself in (Brusseau,
…show more content…
2012). This ethical theory is part of Postmodernism, which can be generally defined as a philosophy which states that there are no universal truths (All About Philosophy, n.d.). In a broad philosophical sense, Postmodernism goes against all other philosophies (besides perhaps Nihilism) in saying that rather than attempting to establish a grand universal philosophy, it doesn't really matter which you choose because your view of the world and search for meaning are both subjective and relative. In terms of cultural relativism specifically, the Postmodernist argument is that there simply is no way to prove that any one culture “has it right”, so personal ethics should change based on environment. Since most other branches of ethics strive to be universal and applicable in all situations, cultural relativism diverges from them on possibly their most basic tenet. MORDIDAS 3 The Mexico City process of getting and paying off a traffic ticket is different from the process in other countries. What values and advantages can be associated with the process in Mexico City? How can it be justified in ethical terms? The Mexican system of mordidas has few advantages. Brusseau (2012) seems to identify the issue as essentially systemic; that is, police salaries are so low that they adapted by necessity to complement their own wages, and in doing so managed to produce a more acceptable standard of living. Brusseau also aptly compares this to a tipped service job. The only real argument I can find in favor of mordidas is that the police themselves are somewhat blameless- they adapted to a bad situation in order to survive. The government's inability to compensate them properly is to blame. I can find no ethical defense for systemic bribery itself outside of necessity on the part of the police. Certainly I'd hold that by causing it to happen, the Mexican government cannot ethically justify the low wages paid to their police. Unless, perhaps, all the funding is going to more critical services... which would simply mean that taxes need to be raised. What values and advantages can be associated with the process of getting and paying off a traffic ticket in your country?
How can it be justified in ethical terms?
In the USA, traffic tickets are generally considered a punitive/preventative measure to prevent traffic violations. The advantage here is that (at least in theory) justice is applied evenly and without prejudice, so lawbreakers have an extrinsic motivation not to break laws, and thereby benefits are seen both in social order and a reduction of dangerous car accidents. Ethically, this would seem to be Utilitarian, since it ought to provide the most happiness for the most people. The unhappiness of people who run stop
MORDIDAS 4 signs and receive traffic tickets is outweighed by the happiness of those whose cars and lives aren't ruined by jackanapes crashing into them while they have right-of-way at a stop. This, of course, isn't always the case: last year I fell prey to a speed trap along a rural highway passing through an Indian Reservation, where everyone around me was driving about 75 MPH but the speed limit had been reduced to 50 through a small stretch of highway, where a traffic cop waited to make money off travelers. And my father once had a policeman pull him over for expired tags in Northern California, whereupon the officer told him he could “pay the fine here” and put out his hand for cash. When my father refused, the officer grew aggressive and let him know that if he didn't pay the supposed fine, he'd be
…show more content…
spending the night in jail. So justice here is not always even- handed either. How can the difference between the Mexico City process of getting and paying off a traffic ticket and the process in your country be converted into an argument in favor of the idea that cultural relativism is the right way to look at things? Does the argument convince you? Why or why not? One might argue that the systems of bribery in Mexico City and traffic tickets in the USA are both sides of the same coin- that either way, it's police extracting money from you. And because bribery and injustice are still perpetuated by local US police forces per my examples, there really doesn't exist a universal ethical code which always applies to traffic tickets here or there. A cultural relativist might also say that mordidas is a necessary evil to pay the police a living wage, and because it has existed so long, attempting to circumvent it would be fruitless. MORDIDAS 5 I am not convinced by those arguments. Traffic tickets have at least a nominal social purpose here, whereas in Mexico City they are imposed at random and therefore cannot be seen to be preventing or punishing crime.
Social services ought to be funded through taxes and provided by the government using said taxes, not funded by systemic abuses of power by individual authority figures without legal backing. Further, I think Postmodernism at its heart is a sham philosophy. Ethical and philosophical frameworks exist partially as a means of promoting social order. Judging everything in terms of relativity can work on a personal level, but eventually such a system of ethics is unable to support the weight of seven billion people shrugging and saying that cultural values are more important than any greater system of values, and social progress screeches to a halt. Why, for instance, should we oppose female circumcision if we are to respect individual cultures where it is
practiced? Conclusion Culture may be judged relatively, but their systems of ethics must be judged by a global standard. We no longer exist in a tribal society, and I have no desire to see us return to one. Justice should be enforced evenly, and governments should provide a living wage to public servants to prevent corruption. Mordidas, while possibly necessary given current conditions, is ethically indefensible from a systemic standpoint, and should not be respected as an integral part of culture in Mexico City. MORDIDAS References All About Philosophy. (n.d.). Postmodernism. Retrieved from https://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/postmodernism.htm Brusseau, J. (2012). Chapter 4: Theories Responding to the Challenge of Cultural Relativism. In Business ethics. Retrieved from https://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/business-ethics/s08-theories-responding- to-the-cha.html 6 
Cultural relativism is defined as the belief that no one culture is superior to another morally, politically, etc., and that all “normal” human behavior is entirely relative, depending on the cultural
If moral principles are defined by cultures, how does one define a culture? If a social scientist were to dissect cultures into subcultures, and then divide those as well, he could logically continue making “cultural distinctions” until he comes to individuals as separate cultures. As a culture of one, each individual by relativism’s definition creates his own moral principles. This could be called ethical egoism (David Mills, personal communication). As logical conclusion extension of relativism, ethical egoism creates a world of moral lone rangers, with no one responsible to answer to any other.
If one chooses, even if they were at fault, it's their right to fight traffic tickets in court. Americans use mobile apps to fight tickets. If it wins, the violator pays the app's owner 50% of the original fine (Kharif, 2015). Central to this American value system is the belief that everyone will be treated fairly, there will always be an opportunity to contest a ticket, and the payment of bribes is not expected, although many an impaired driver and those with license infractions try to work brides in the opposite
Macklin, Ruth. "Ethical relativism in a multicultural society." Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 8.1 (1998): 1-22.
After analyzing cultural relativism over the semester, I have come to the conclusion that cultural relativism under anthropological analysis defines every single culture with some aspect of worth as viewed by an individual within that society. Franz Boas, termed the “Father of American Anthropology”, first introduced the concept of cultural relativism. He wanted people to understand the way certain cultures conditioned people to interact with the world around them, which created a necessity to understand the culture being studied. In my words, cultural relativism is the concept that cultures should be viewed from the people among that culture. When studied by anthropologists, cultural relativism is employed to give all cultures an equal
Relativism is the belief that there is no absolute truth, that the only truth is what an individual or culture happen to believe. People who believe in relativism often think different people can have different views about what's moral and immoral. Cultural relativism, like moral relativism, filter through today's society. People often believe that as long no one gets hurt, everything will be okay. Realistically, the truth about relativism has been discarded along with God.
The Challenge of Culture Relativism written by James Rachels argues the downsides and upsides to the idea of Cultural Relativism. This is the idea of Cultural Relativism: the principle that an individual human 's beliefs and activities should be understood by others in terms of that individual 's own culture. It was established as axiomatic in anthropological research by Franz Boas in the first few decades of the 20th century and later popularized by his students.
Vaughn first defines ethical relativism by stating that moral standards are not objective, but are relative to what individuals or cultures believe (Vaughn 13). Rachels says that cultural relativism states “that there is no such thing as universal truth in ethics; there are only various cultural codes,
Rachels, J. (1986). The Challenge of Cultural Relativism. The elements of moral philosophy (pp. 20-36). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
We live in a world society that is changing rapidly. It is causing people of various cultures likely to interact with each other. This interaction can be positive or negative depending on respect people have for other cultural groups and the level of sensitivity. These behaviors are directly related to the two very important concept in sociology, which are known as Ethnocentrism and Culture relativism. Negative attitudes toward other ethnic group or cultures can be result of ethnocentrism. On the other hand, positive attitude can be the result of the culture relativism approach. The purpose of the paper is to show why people need to move from ethnocentrism mindset to culture relativism .As America is becoming more and more diversit,we need
In explaining Cultural Relativism, it is useful to compare and contrast it with Ethical Relativism. Cultural Relativism is a theory about morality focused on the concept that matters of custom and ethics are not universal in nature but rather are culture specific. Each culture evolves its own unique moral code, separate and apart from any other. Ethical Relativism is also a theory of morality with a view of ethics similarly engaged in understanding how morality comes to be culturally defined. However, the formulation is quite different in that from a wide range of human habits, individual opinions drive the culture toward distinguishing normal “good” habits from abnormal “bad” habits. The takeaway is that both theories share the guiding principle that morality is bounded by culture or society.
Culture Relativism; what is it? Culture Relativism states that we cannot absolute say what is right and what is wrong because it all depends in the society we live in. James Rachels however, does not believe that we cannot absolute know that there is no right and wrong for the mere reason that cultures are different. Rachels as well believes that “certain basic values are common to all cultures.” I agree with Rachels in that culture relativism cannot assure us that there is no knowledge of what is right or wrong. I believe that different cultures must know what is right and what is wrong to do. Cultures are said to be different but if we look at them closely we can actually find that they are not so much different from one’s own culture. Religion for example is a right given to us and that many cultures around the world practices. Of course there are different types of religion but they all are worshipped and practice among the different culture.
Ethnocentrism and cultural relativism are two contrasting terms that are displayed by different people all over the world. Simply put, ethnocentrism is defined as “judging other groups from the perspective of one’s own cultural point of view.” Cultural relativism, on the other hand, is defined as “the view that all beliefs are equally valid and that truth itself is relative, depending on the situation, environment, and individual.” Each of these ideas has found its way into the minds of people worldwide. The difficult part is attempting to understand why an individual portrays one or the other. It is a question that anthropologists have been asking themselves for years.
There are different countries and cultures in the world, and as being claimed by cultural relativists, there is no such thing as “objective truth in morality” (Rachels, 2012). Cultural relativists are the people who believe in the Cultural Ethical Relativism, which declares that different cultures value different thing so common ethical truth does not exist. However, philosopher James Rachels argues against this theory due to its lack of invalidity and soundness. He introduced his Geographical Differences Argument to point out several mistakes in the CER theory. Cultural Ethical Relativism is not totally wrong because it guarantees people not to judge others’ cultures; but, Rachels’ viewpoints make a stronger argument that this theory should not be taken so far even though he does not reject it eventually.
The practices of many cultures are varied from one another, considering we live in a diverse environment. For example, some cultures may be viewed as similar in comparison while others may have significant differences. The concept of Cultural Relativism can be best viewed as our ideas, morals, and decisions being dependent on the individual itself and how we have been culturally influenced. This leads to many conflict in where it prompts us to believe there is no objectivity when it comes to morality. Some questions pertaining to Cultural Relativism may consists of, “Are there universal truths of morality?” “Can we judge