After this lesson, you are expected to:

1. Understand the principles of ethical behavior in modern society at the level of the person, society,
and interaction with the environment and other shared resources.

2. Develop a conscious ethical sense and become critical in choosing a moral philosophy to live by.

3. Learn from cautiously filtered supplemental online lectures, take exciting automated fun quiz games,
and engage in intellectual discussions with other people online and in class.

4. Help develop critical attitudes about various moral theories.

III. INTRODUCTION
 This lesson addresses the importance of moral standards and how they

differ from other rules in life. It teaches the advantage of owning moral

standards (morality and ethics) over merely abiding by moral standards.

the first part lays the groundwork- the meaning of ethics- and leads the

the students through the analysis of human experience, linking it to the

elements of the ethical dimension. The first part serves as an initial

discussion into the subject matter. Here we recognize ethics as a

significant dimension of human existence, and start to explore how we

may engage in careful ethical thinking.

 Ethics

Ethics is a branch of philosophy that studies morality or the rightness or wrongness of human conduct.

Morality speaks of a code or system of behavior in regards to standards of right and wrong behavior,

Ethics evaluates moral concepts, values, principles, and standards. It is concerned with norms of human
conduct.

Ethics is considered a normative study of human actions

Rules

Rules refer to explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a specific activity
or sphere.

Rules are usually coupled with means to impose consequences on those who violate them.

Rules are considered essential for a healthy economic system.

Rules produce a sense of justice among social beings

IV. CONTENTS:

A. What is ethics?

As a branch of Philosophy, ethics stands to queries about where there is reason to do. Dealing with
human actions and reasons for action, ethics is also concerned with character. In fact, the word ethics is
derived from the Greek “ethos”, which means “character”, or in plural “manners”.
Some questions that are ethical in nature are: What is the good? Who is a moral

person? What are the virtues of human being? What makes an act right? What duties do we have to
each other?

Also called moral philosophy, ethics evaluates moral concepts, values, principles, and standards.
Because it is concerned with norms of human conduct, ethics is considered a normative study of human
actions.

Understanding your moral compass in order to develop better judgment is the aim for studying Ethics.
Upon entering college, students are not blank sheets, devoid of pre-existing beliefs and values. College
students already have developed a set of moral standards by which they use to understand the world
and moral compass to navigate in it. The reality makes it important for students to study, explore,
understand and critically reflect on their personal value systems. The end goal for studying ethics is for
the student to become a person who makes sound judgments, sensitive to the common good.

Ethics ensure a generally agreed standard work-related behavior that empowers professionals to foster
moral values through their work. Ethics gives a sense of justification in one’s judgment, and helps ensure
that decisions at work are not made based on purely subjective factors. Without the study of ethics, the
practice of one’s profession will fall prey to vastly conflicting individual interpretations.
Clearly, ethics and morality necessarily carry the concepts of moral standards or rules with regard to
behavior. So as way of introducing moral rules, let us discuss why rules are important to social beings.

Importance of Rules to Social Beings

Humans in general, do not live in isolation. Instead, an individual is a member of a community of people
whose common goal is to survive and thrive. As human societies evolved, they found that human
communities have better chances to survive if they work together; and that working together is more
effective when there is a system in place. One of the systems that humans developed are standards that
guide human activities, or simply, “rules”.

Rules benefit social beings in various manners:

Rules protect social beings by regulating behavior. Rules build boundaries and place limits on behavior.
Rules are usually coupled with means to impose consequences on those who violate them. One of the
reasons people follow accepted rules is to avoid negative consequences.

Rules help to guarantee each person certain rights and freedom. Rules form frameworks for society.
Nations are generally nations of laws and the governing principles are outlined in what is called
constitution. Because the majority has agreed to follow and consent to be governed by such a
constitution, the freedom outlined exists. One of the advantages of such a system is that each person is
guaranteed certain rights as the government is limited in its power to ensure that it does not become
powerful enough to suppress liberty.

Rules produce a sense justice among social beings. Rules are needed in order to keep the strong from
dominating the weak, that is, to prevent exploitation and domination. Without rules, schemes in which
those with the power control the system, would take over. In effect, rules generate a stable system that
provides justice, in which even the richest and most powerful have limitations on what they can do. If
they transgress rules such as laws and ordinances and take advantage of people, there are
consequences both socially and criminally.

Rules are essential for a healthy economic system. Without rules regulating business, power would
centralize around monopolies and threaten the strength and competitiveness of the system. Rules are
needed to ensure product safety, employee safety, and product quality. Copy rights and patents help
protect people’s intellectual property. Rules and regulations also keep the banking system stable so as
to avoid depression and the like.

In short, society could not soundly function without rules and regulations. Rules are necessary to protect
the greater good. Even the freest societies ought to have rules in order to avoid exploitations and
tyranny while upholding the common welfare.
B. MORAL VS. NON-MORAL STANDARDS

After this lesson, you are expected to:

understand the importance of having moral standards

know the characteristics of moral standards that set it apart from non-moral standards

cite examples of moral and non-moral standards

OVERVIEW

Moral vs. Non-Moral Standards

Non-moral standards refer to rules that are unrelated to moral ethical considerations.

Not all rules are moral and not all standards are moral standards.

Moral standards involve serious wrongs or significant benefits.

Moral standards are not only rules or principles in society, but they take precedence over other
considerations, including aesthetic, prudential, and even legal ones.

Moral standards are based on impartial considerations

Impartiality is usually depicted as being free of bias or prejudice. It requires that we give equal and/or
adequate consideration to the interests of all concerned parties.

Moral standards are associated with special emotions and vocabulary.

What are moral standards?

Moral standards are those concerned with or relating to human behavior, especially the distinction
between good and bad (or right or wrong) behavior. It has been observed that this intrinsic code of
honor is already present in children, and it continually undergoes revisions as the child matures and
influenced by his or her surroundings. Moral standards deal with matters that the person thinks have
serious consequence. However, these standards are not hinged on external authorities or rules, but
based on good reason and impartial considerations overriding self-interest. Feelings of guilt and shame
are often associated when the person goes against his or her moral standards.

Characteristics of Moral Standards that set its part from Non-moral Standard

Moral standards involve behaviors that seriously affect other people’s well- being. It can either
profoundly injure or benefit a person or persons. For example, lying, stealing, and killing are actions that
hurt people. While treating people with respect and kindness uplifts them.

Moral standards take a more important consideration than other standards, including self-interest. For
example, because trust is important to you than revenge, you refuse to expose your friend’s terrible
secret even though she offended you.

Moral standards do not depend on any external authority but in how the person perceives the
reasonableness of the action. For example, you will not copy your classmate’s answers during the exam
not because your teacher will fail you as you do so, but because your personally believe cheating is
wrong and demeaning to you as a student.

Moral standards are believed to be universal. Thus, when you truly believe an act is wrong you also will
not agree or consent when other people commit what you consider a wrongful act. On the other hand, if
you believe an action is morally right, then you will also support other people doing such acts. For
example, you believe lying is wrong therefore you will not also agree when someone is not telling truth.
On the other hand, you tend to trust the person whom you know as someone who is true to his or her
word.

Moral standards are based on objectivity. This means what you consider as right or wrong does not
depend on whether the action advances the interest of a particular person or group, but your action
depends on a universal standpoint where everyone’s interest is counted as equal.
Moral standards are associated with vocabulary that depicts emotion or feelings. For example, when
you go against your moral standards, you will say you feel guilty, remorseful, or shamed. You may
describe your behavior as immoral or sinful. If you see people going against your moral standards you
feel indignant or perhaps disgusted with that person.

What are non-moral standards?

Non-moral standards can be considered as relative standards by which something or someone is judged
as either good or bad. The rules of non-moral standards vary because these rules depend on the
guidelines agreed by a particular group. These refer to rules that are unrelated to moral or ethical
considerations. Either these standards are not necessarily linked to morality or by nature lack ethical
sense. For example, when you take a picture in the dark with no flash; when you wear a sleeveless shirt
and shorts on a very formal occasion; or you write a grammatically incorrect essay- you have violated
certain standards. In the sample situations, you violated no-moral standards in rules of: technique,
fashion standards, and grammar, etiquette, rules in games, and various house rules.

Moral Standards versus Other Rules in Life

Although the six characteristics of moral standards distinguish it from other life rules, it is useful to
discuss other standards with which moral standards are sometimes confused with. These other life rules
are etiquette, policy, law, and commandment.

Etiquette is a set of rules on how an individual should responsibly behave in the society (Taylor and
Williams, 2017). Table manners such as the proper use of utensils and the proper manner of eating are
examples of etiquette. Meanwhile, policy is a clear, simple statement of how an organization plans to
handle its services, actions, or business. Policies are guiding rules to help with decision making. When
schools require their students to wear the proper school uniform and ID, No Entry rule posted in your
school’s entrance is an example of a policy. On the other hand, a law is a rule created and enforced by
the government and its agencies to maintain order, resolve disputes, and protect a person’s liberty and
rights. Can you give an example of a law in the Philippines? Finally, a commandment is a rule that is to
be strictly observed because it was said to be set by a divine entity, such as those in the Ten
Commandments.

What is the advantage of owning moral standards over merely abiding by moral standards?

For most people, the fundamental moral question is, “What should I do?” or ”How should I act?” Ethics
are presumed as moral rules on how a person should act. For example, “every person is obligated to do
the greatest good for the most number of people.” There is also a philosophy that “everyone is
obligated to act in ways that upholds the human dignity for all people.” Moral principles like this guide
the practice of various professions (professional ethics).

But is that all there is to ethics? Is ethics just about following rules of do’s and don’ts? This obsession
with rules somehow neglects the more important aspect of being a human person and that is becoming
what you should be. In other words, the more “important question for ethics is not “What should I do?”
but “What kind of person should I be?”

WEEK NUMBER: 4-5

I. TITLE: FREEDOM AS FOUNDATION OF MORAL ACTS

11. OBJECTIVES: At the end of lecture handout 4, students are expected to:
1. understand the basic tenets why only human beings can be ethical

[Link] the philosophical insights on freedom

III. INTRODUCTION

When talking about freedom and responsibility, aren’t these contrasting words? Freedom connotes no
ties, no hindrance, no blocks. Responsibility connotes doing something, not because you want to but
because it is expected of you. There are Eastern and Western philosophers who viewed that
responsibility follows freedom. What does this mean?

1V. CONTENT:

Only Human Beings Can Be Ethical

Another basic tenet in ethics is the belief that only human beings can be truly ethical. Most philosophers
hold that unlike animals, human beings possess some traits that make it possible for them to be moral:
Only human beings are rational, autonomous, and self-conscious. The qualities of rationality, autonomy,
and self-consciousness are believed to confer a full and equal moral status to those that possess them as
these beings are the only ones capable of achieving certain values and goods. For instance, in order to
attain the kind of dignity and self-respect that human beings have, a being must be able to conceive of
itself as one among many, and must be able to consciously select his actions rather than be led by blind
instinct.

Only human beings can act morally or immorally. Strictly speaking, an animal which devours another
animal cannot be said to be immoral. In the same manner, no matter how good an animal’s action
seems to be, it cannot be technically said to be moral. Only human beings can act morally or immorally.
This is important in Ethics because only beings that can act morally can be required to sacrifice their
interests for the sake of others. Not able to truly act morally, animals could not really sacrifice their own
good for the sake of others, but would even pursue their good at the expense of others.
Only human beings are part of the moral community. The so-called moral community is not defined in
terms of the intrinsic properties that beings have, but rather in terms of the essential social relations
that exists between or among beings. Distinctively, only human beings can possess or practice values
such as love, honor, social relationships, forgiveness, compassion, and altruism. Moreover, only human
beings can communicate with each other in truly meaningful ways, can engage in economic, political,
and familial relationships with each other, and can also form deep personal relationships with each
other.

These kinds of relationships require the members of such relationships to extend real
concern to other members of these relationships in order for the relationships to continue. Another
thing human beings have that no animal has is the ability to participate in a collective cognition. That is,
we, as individuals, are able to draw on the collective knowledge of humanity in a way no animal can.

Freedom as a Foundation of Morality

As explained above, one of the reasons animals cannot be truly ethical is that they are not really
autonomous or free. Likewise, a robot, no matter how beneficial its functions may be, cannot be said to
be moral, for it has no freedom or choice but to work according to what is commanded based on its
built-in program.

Basically, morality is a question of choice. Morality, practically, is choosing ethical codes, values, or
standards to guide us in our daily lives. Philosophically, choosing is impossible without freedom.

Morality requires and allows choice, which means the right to choose even differently from our fellows.
In their daily lives, people make the choice to give to charities, donate time and money to schools,
mentor and children, open businesses, or protest against animal cruelty.

Everyone who wishes to function morally or rationally in a society has to make choices virtually every
minute of the day. Practically, the sum of our choices can be said to define our specific ‘morality.’
Applicably, using the government or one’s culture to coerce people to behave in a certain way is not
morality but the antithesis of morality. This principle in ethics applies even when the motive is pure.
Philosophical Insights on Freedom

Freedom is a Gift

According to Gabriel Marcel, freedom is the ability to act significantly. Free acts are significant because
they help to make us who we are as human beings. Freedom is not merely the ability to make arbitrary
choices because we are not free if everything that we can choose to do is insignificant in the first place.
Freedom is the ability to make significant choices and, according to Marcel, it is gift given to us by God.

Freedom is Complementary to Reason

One of Aristotle’s ethical doctrines asserted that freedom and reason are

complementary. In Aristotle’s view, the human person as a moral agent must exercise practical
rationality in order to determine how to pursue his or her ultimate end. Self- direction, rather than bare
spontaneity, is the crucial characteristic of the free person. Aristotle considered freedom and reason as
necessary faculties for consciously making sense of things ( events, occurrences, phenomena,
situations).

Freedom is Absolute

Existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Satre’s concept of freedom is not the freedom to do

something or anything. In Sartre’s view, the human person is “absolutely free”. Freedom sets the human
person apart from other creatures. You might say “But what about animal freedom? Animals- unless
caged- are also free. Animals just roam around, eat when they need to, and sleep where they want.
Animals are not tied down with responsibilities like humans.” Yes, it is true that animals are- unless
caged- free. In fact, animals also have a notion of freedom. When they are caged, animals will try to
escape from their cages. This kind of freedom is called freedom from restrictions. It is a primitive kind of
freedom. It is freedom for mere survival.

Humans, on the other hand, have higher kind of freedom. The freedom of the human person is beyond
freedom from restrictions. In fact, a person in jail is still free. He is free to think, to change, and to
become a better person. A prisoner id free to redefine himself. As human persons, we are free to make
choices. We are free to decide. And we are free to use this freedom to attain goals higher than satisfying
basic needs.

Freedom Demands Responsibility

Jean-Paul Sartre said “You are free” because he believed a person always has a choice, Thus, according
to Sartre, you must choose. His idea was that freedom is the capacity to choose, that even not choosing
is a choice. It is important to note however, that he also added the concept of responsibility to freedom.
According to Sartre, even though individuals must make their own choices because they are free, these
choices (though freely made) also have consequences to it. These consequences to freedom are
something that the person must endure. Therefore, it can be said that in Sartre’s concept, responsibility
follows freedom.

Chinese philosopher, Lao Tzu also discussed freedom and responsibility. Lao Tzu advocated that a
person can and should choose to act, but his or her actions should be that which would result in
harmony. Lao Tzu’s idea was that in any society, the exercise of one’s freedom is not absolute. The
person is free to do anything; but it is not without consequence of one’s actions. Responsibility, as a
moral quality serves as voluntary check and balance of one’s freedom. Without proper balance limitless
freedom is a dangerous as an extremely controlling social group. Great social injustices have resulted
from such radical mindsets.

LECTURE HANDOUT 5- CULTURE AND CULTURAL RELATIVISM

OBJECTIVES:

At the end of lecture handout 5, the student will be able to:

1. explain the relationship between individual acts and character.

2. discuss how moral character is developed in a person.

3. analyze cultural relativism in Ethics and its impact in the development of their character.

4. understand that each culture has its own uniqueness and although it does not agree with one’s own
culture, it is still right in the parent culture
INTRODUCTION/OVERVIEW

This module enlightens the learner about cultural relativism. It will help them understand why it is
important to be tolerant of other cultures, and how to accept other culture’s mores and traditions.
Cultural relativism is consistent in promoting tolerance in teaching that no culture is morally superior or
more progressive than others. If we do not believe that some cultures are better than others, then there
would be nothing for us to tolerate.

What is culture?

Culture refers to the cumulative deposit of knowledge, experience, beliefs, values, attitudes, meanings,
hierarchies, religion, notion of time, roles, spatial relations, concepts of the universe, and material
objects and possessions acquired by a group of people in the course of generations through individual
and group striving.

Culture consists of patterns, explicit and implicit, of and for behavior acquired and transmitted by
symbols, constituting the distinctive achievement of human groups, including their embodiments in
artifacts; the essential core of culture consists of traditional ideas and especially their attached values;
culture systems may, on the other hand, be considered as products of action, as conditioning influences
upon further action.

Culture is the sum total of the learned behavior of a group of people that are generally considered to be
the tradition of that people and are transmitted from generation to generation.

Culture in its broadest sense is cultivated behavior, that is the totality of a person’s learned,
accumulated experience which is socially transmitted, or more briefly, behavior through social learning.

Culture is symbolic communication. Some of its symbols include a group’s skills, knowledge, attitudes,
values, and motives. The meanings of the symbols are learned and deliberately perpetuated in a society
through its institutions.
Defined broadly therefore, culture includes all the things individuals learn while growing up among
particular group: attitudes, standards of morality, rules of etiquette, perceptions of reality, language,
notions about the proper way to live, beliefs about how male and females should interact, ideas about
how the world works and so forth. We call this culture knowledge.

Elements of Culture

[Link]

Symbols can be anything that a group of people find meaningful. For example, in religious groups, the
cross is a symbol for Christianity while the crescent is for Islam.

[Link]

Language is a complex symbol system that enabled human beings to communicate either verbally or
through writing. Ilocano, Bisaya, Tagalog, and several other native languages were already spoken in
pre-colonial Philippines. Their ancient script or writing called baybayin had characters, and each
character represented a complete syllable.

[Link]
Beliefs are assumptions or convictions held to be true by an individual or a group of people. These
assumptions/ convictions could be about events, people, or things. For example, ancient civilizations
attributed events to spirits and gods. This is what we now call “superstitious beliefs.” However, when
people started to think critically and scientific research flourished, events are now explained differently.
This also shows that beliefs change through time.

[Link]

Values are culturally acceptable standards of behavior. It is what a person considers important in life.
For example, in pre-colonial Philippines there were evidences that women were equally valued and held
central roles in society just as did the men. This was in stark contrast to the Spanish colonizers however,
who valued women mainly as domestic caretakers.

[Link]

Is an informal guideline by a particular group of people or social unit about what is considered normal or
correct/ incorrect social behavior. For instance, the Filipino norm in relating to other people is to get
along well with others, even with complete strangers. The Filipino trait is called pakikisama.

How does culture define Moral Behavior?

One of the revered founder of Western philosophy- Plato in his famous philosophical work, The Republic
cited three critical elements that jointly influence the human person’s moral development. These
elements are native traits (or what we might
call genetic characteristics); early childhood experience; and one’s cultural surroundings (Pekarsky,
1998).

Plato implied that if a person’s cultural surroundings reward conformity to agreeable norms it would
lead the person to behave much better and quell undesirable conduct. He also expressed that the power
of culture over an individual is more potent in children because they do not have pre-existing values.
The child’s cultural surroundings create these values and dispositions. Thus, Plato insisted that a child’s
cultural surroundings should “express the image of a noble character”; that role models should display
the conduct of a proper human being because the behavior of the adults serves as the child’s moral
foundation he or she grows and develops (Cornford, 1966; Pekarsky,1998).

CULTURAL RELATIVISM

It describes the simple fact that there are different cultures and each has different ways of behaving,
thinking and feeling as its members learn such from the previous generation. There is an enormous
amount of evidence to confirm this claim. It is well known by just about every human on the planet that
people do things differently around the globe. People dress differently, eat differently, speak different
languages, sing different songs, have different music and dances and have many different customs.

In some countries, children are allowed to marry but in most countries this is unacceptable. Divorce in
not allowed in the Philippines, but Filipino Muslim men and women can legally divorce their respective
wife or husband. Why are these so many differences in societies on what is acceptable or not? Is it true
that different cultures have radically different moral codes? Are there any values that all societies
commonly have? This lesson will discuss the advantages of cultural relativism and the dangers of holding
this viewpoint.
Why can’t all cultural practices be always correct?

The world is wide and huge. Part of what makes the world interesting is that it is home to different
groups of people who have developed their own unique outlook on how to survive or thrive. These
differences led people to view life differently and live completely different lifestyles. German- American
anthropologist Franz Boaz first articulated in 1887,”…civilization is not something absolute, but…is
relative and…our ideas and conceptions are true only so far as our civilizations goes.” However, the first
to use the term “cultural relativism” was philosopher and social theorist Alain Locke in 1924. Cultural
relativism explains why one behavior or practice is completely

acceptable by a particular group of people, while taboo in another. It refers to the idea that values,
knowledge, and behavior of people must be understood within its own cultural context, and not by the
standards of other cultures. Hence, all moral and ethical standards (or the judgment of what is right or
wrong) is valid and there is not “one” standard that is “better” among all others.

Philosopher and university professor Dr. James Rachels (1914-2003), in his book The Elements of Moral
Philosophy, laid out five claims of cultural relativists as to why right or wrong is only a matter of cultural
standards. These claims are:

Different societies have different moral codes.

The moral code of a society determines what is right or wrong. There is no objective standard
considered better than others.
There are no universal moral truths.

The moral code of a particular society has no special status. It is but one among many.

It is arrogant for one culture to judge another culture. There should be tolerance among cultures.

The Advantages and Dangers of Cultural Relativism

Rachel identified two positive lessons we can learn from cultural relativism

It warns us from assuming that our preferences are absolute rational standard.

It teaches us to keep open mind and to be more amenable in discovering the truth.

Many of our practices are relevant only to our particular community. This implies

our moral views are a reflection of our society’s prejudices. Cultural relativism makes us understand
that what we think as truth may actually be just the result of cultural conditioning.
On the other hand, the dangers of cultural relativism are:

We cannot call our societal practices that promote harm

If cultural relativism is true, then we should not condemn what Hitler and

the Nazis did against the Jews, Apartheid in South Africa, or any form of maltreatment,
damage, injury, or destruction that one community inflicts upon anyone or anything.

We cannot justifiably criticize our own culture’s harmful practices.

This implies that to decide whether your action is right or wrong all you

you need to do is check whether your action is in accordance with the standards

of YOUR society. If your actions are in line with your culture, then you have done

nothing wrong-even though your actions were harmful. After all, if it is true that
 you cannot criticize other cultures, then all the more you cannot criticize other

cultures, then all the more can you not criticize your own culture since people in

your group accept it as a way of life. For example, if cultural relativism is to be

followed then 2016 Metro Manila Film Fest officials did not have the right to take

back the Fernando Poe Jr. Memorial Award granted to the film ‘Oro” where a dog

was slaughtered in the movie because dogs as “pulutan” is part of an issue.

The idea of social progress becomes doubtful

Progress means replacing something old with something better. However,

cultural relativism is to be followed, by what standards do we say that a society

has become better? The idea of social reform is now eradicated because we are

prohibited from judging one society as better over others. For example, Spanish
 colonial era was in effect a different society than modern Philippines. Hence, we

cannot say that Filipinos have made social progress from being slaves

to conquistadores into a freedom- loving society because slavery during the

Spanish colonial era was the norm; and it was a different time compared to

Modern Philippines.

Rachel’s Evaluation of Cultural Relativism

The late Philosophy professor James Rachel (1941-2003) made a compelling assessment of cultural
relativism. Because the theory attains widespread prominence, it would help a lot to consider Rachel’s
comprehensive evaluation of this ethical system.

The cultural differences argument

Rachel logically analyzed the cultural relativism’s line of thinking (1999,pp.22-25). He explains that the
cultural relativist’s approach is to argue from facts about the differences between cultural outlooks to a
conclusion about the status of morality. Thus we are invited to accept reasoning like these:

The Greeks believed it was wrong to eat the dead, whereas the Callatians (an Indian tribe) believed it
was right to eat the dead. Therefore, eating the dead is neither objectively right nor objectively wrong. It
is merely a matter of opinion, which varies from culture to culture.

The Eskimos see nothing wrong with infanticide, whereas we believe infanticide is immoral. 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. Both are specific

cases of a more general argument, which states:

Different cultures have different moral codes. Therefore, there is no objective “truth” in morality. Right
and wrong are only matters of opinions, and opinions vary from culture to culture.
Rachel calls this the cultural differences argument. Seemingly persuasive, it is nonetheless unsound
because its conclusion does not follow from its premise. That is, even if the premise is true, the
conclusion might still be false. Notice that the premise concerns what people believe but the conclusion
assumes what really is the case.

Concerning the case of the Greeks and Callatians, one group believed it was wrong to eat the dead
whereas the other considered it right. But does it follow, from the mere fact that they disagreed, that
there is no objective truth in the matter? It does not- very mistaken.

Cultural relativism goes wrong in drawing a sweeping conclusion about an issue from the mere fact that
the people disagree about it. The theory thus fails because it derives a substantive conclusion about
morality from the observation that people disagree about ethical issues.

The Disagreements Among Cultures

Cultural Relativism capitalizes on the observation that cultures differ dramatically in their views of right
and wrong. But how much do they differ?

Rachels takes the case of a culture in which people believe it is wrong to eat cows. Such a society would
appear to have values very different from the majority of the people in the world. But upon learning that
its people believe that after death human soul dwells in the bodies of animals-so that a cow may be
someone’s grandmother-it becomes clear that their values are not essentially different from ours. The
difference lies in belief systems, not in values. As Rachel puts it, “we agree that we shouldn’t eat
Grandma, we simply disagree about whether the cow is (or could be ) Grandma”.

There are many factors, Rachels further explains, which work together to produce the customs of a
society. Aside from society’s values, there religious beliefs, factual beliefs, the physical circumstances in
which people must live, and others. Since the difference in customs may be because of some other
aspects of social life, then it’s wrong to conclude that there is a disagreement about values and morality
just because
customs differ. Therefore, there may be less ethical disagreements than there appears to be.

The Case of Eskimos and Callatians

In Sociology and Anthropology, the Eskimos are popular for killing perfectly normal infants, especially
girls. This makes them appear to possess significantly different values from ours.

As Rachels elucidates the matter nonetheless it is not that Eskimos have less affection for their children
or less respect for human life. An Eskimo family will always protect its babies if conditions permit. But
they live in a harsh environment where food is in in short supply th at “life is hard, and the margin of
safety small.

As in many primitive societies, Eskimo mothers nurse their first infants over a long period of time,
breastfeeding them for four years or longer. Unable to farm, Eskimos must move about in search of food
and infants must be carried. A mother can carry only one baby in her parka as she travels and goes
about her outdoor work. So even in the best times, there are limits to the number of infants that a
mother can sustain.
Infant girls are more readily disposed of because of the following reasons given by Rachels:

The males are the primary food providers-they are the hunters-and it is obviously important to maintain
a sufficient number of food providers.

The hunters suffer a high casualty rate- the adult men who die prematurely far outnumber the women
who die early. Thus, if male and female infants survive in equal numbers, the female adult population
would greatly outnumber the male adult population.

In Eskimo’s very special case, infanticide is thus a recognition that drastic

measures are sometimes needed to ensure the family survival.

Take note too, that killing the baby is not the first option considered. As Rachels reports, adoption is
common and killing is only the last resort. There is a need to emphasize this in order to show that the
raw data of the anthropologists can be misleading: it can make the differences in values between
cultures appear greater than they are. The Eskimos’ values are not all that different from our values.
Essentially the same case can be said of the funerary practice of the Callatians. Indeed, “eating our
fathers” is an appalling idea to many of us. But as Rachels explains, performing such practice 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. As respecting the dead is generally shared by many cultures, what Callatians
therefore do to their dead loved ones does not necessarily indicate a difference in values.