In the excerpt of Anthropology and the Abnormal, Ruth Benedict defends ethical relativism to determine what is morally correct and what is morally wrong. She takes history into account and comes to the “conclusion that moral relativism is the correct view of moral principles.” This means that she believes that with context, we should look at situation as to how they are portrayed in life and at the time to determine how moral the situation or decision may be.
She takes a look to modern day concepts that drive us, like sex and status, and explains that our own upbringing in our society manages what we think is moral and immoral in regards to them. Benedict throughout the writing uses how we look at homosexuality to explain further that “there are well described cultures in which these abnormals function at ease and with honor, and apparently without danger or difficulty to the society.” By some, homosexuality is viewed as a negative, a sin or a weakness in men, and often sexualized in the case of women. The modern view from the ill informed is often restricted, and boiled down to negative and immoral. Homosexuality is sometimes thought of a “strain” to “any man’s vitality,” as if it killed the spirit of being a man by definition. Though there is truth that in some societies, homosexuality was very normal, and did not infringe on the society, and may even have been something that was encouraged.
With the new grounds for exploring relativism, she begins to describe homosexuality in history versus how her own modern day looked at the topic. She begins with the statement “homosexuals in many societies are not incompetent, but they may be such if the” concept is seen as harming or demeaning any of what has already been socially beat into the current culture, like the manliness and manhood held sacred to men in society. Although “wherever homosexuality has been given an honorable place in any society” homosexuals “have filled adequately the honorable roles society assigns to them.” If not viewed as a downfall in a society, a trait may be viewed as a normal, and thus treated like one. The perspective aspect makes it so that a trait viewed in one area may be terrible, but when in another part of the world, is held up as a virtue amongst the society. Has there ever been a society where being openly gay was something citizens upheld as having great moral value? Actually yes, ancient Greek society.
In Greek society, being a homosexual was not only a regular part of daily life, but was well respected as a “major [mean] to the good life.” It was normal in Greece to be able to be openly homosexual, and by looking at the Greek history, homosexuality played a bigger role. Even in Plato’s Republic, being homosexual “was generally so regarded in Greece at that time” as a part of a good life. If philosopher Plato thought of being openly homosexual was something rational and of a high standing, then why doesn’t our society view homosexuality in the same way? It all has to do with the inculcated views of homosexuality brought to us years ago, with a thought that has not yet changed with the years.
By reading Benedict’s work, we see that “normality is culturally defined” and that “the majority of mankind quite readily take any shape that is presented to them.” In regards to abortion and capital punishment with the argument from Benedict, I can say that I can defend how the moral choices between those two concepts came to be. However as a society changes as it has over time, I can say that what is relevant to us changed. I’ve only ever grown up in a democracy, so to think of a majority not choosing what is best for society is something alien to me. With the topics of abortion and capital punishment, it makes sense that societal views dictate what we think is right and wrong, and the method by which we start to think this is from the majority. Sadly, in our own society the wealthy minority plays a bigger role, I can’t all the way justify Benedict’s statement that the majority has the ability to decide when in my own society, that is not the true and pure case. I cannot defend her conclusion with the consequences being so large. I think that with both abortion and capital punishment there is a line that the majority may believe is right or wrong, even if moral relativism says a concept’s morality is inconclusive. To leave such argumentative topics in limbo is a major threat to what’s already right and wrong.
In my opinion, I believe that relativism should not get in the way of opinions about a certain subject. If the concept cannot back up it’s claims, and we are both able to reason in the same way, then you can decide whether you think something is right or wrong regardless of if it is more common in one area of the world.
Word Count: 851
Disembodied Blog 