Morality and Culture

Hey, its been a little while since I've posted anything on here so i thought I would just post my most recent paper I wrote for my philosophy class. It is a reflection on Ruth Benedict's article about Morality...


Ruth Benedict addresses the issue of morality and argues that morality is culturally defined. She uses tribes or groups of people completely isolated from any culture other than their own as examples to support her claim that morality is culturally defined. She decides to use these specific examples because, “only among these simpler peoples has there been sufficient isolation to give opportunity for the development of localized social forms.” These peoples include Dyaks, Hopis, Fijians, and Yakuts. The first part of her article discusses abnormality in respect to various cultures and their particular customs. She claims that the most “notorious” of these abnormalities is trance and catalepsy. Although a mild mystic is unusual and abnormal in our culture today, most people have looked at them not only as normal but “characteristic of highly valued and gifted individuals.” There was even a time in our culture when that was the case. Benedict uses Catholicism and the mark of sainthood as an example of this. Another major example she uses is homosexuality. She tells how our culture poses conflicts to this we identify the consequences of these conflicts with homosexuality. “But these consequences are obviously local and cultural.” She then explains how many Indian tribes in the Americas practice something called berdache. Berdache are men-women who were “men at puberty or thereafter took the dress and occupations of women.” She explains how they would even marry other men. “They were not left exposed to the conflicts that visit the deviant who is excluded from participation in the recognized patterns of his society.” Benedict also uses various other examples of people who would be looked at as deviants and abnormal in our society but socially accepted in other cultures to strengthen her argument that morality is culturally defined. She claims that normality is essentially just a term for the customs in which a particular culture practice, and abnormality is simply the segment that they do not use. Although morality differs in all societies and that it is just a easy term to us for practices that are accepted in a particular society. “Mankind has always preferred to say, “It is morally good,” rather than “It is habitual,”… But historically the two phrases are synonymous.” Her claim that morality is culturally defined is essentially backed up by the idea that if for example homosexuality is accepted and practiced openly, people will be homosexual. She concludes by saying how mankind will happily and readily take on any shape, any culturally accepted lifestyles that they are presented with.
After reading this article carefully and critically thinking about the examples presented in it I can see her point of view and why she argues that morality is culturally defined. I do believe that the culture in which a person grows up in affects everything about them, from their thought process to their system of beliefs. If someone were to grow up in a culture where homosexuality was normal and socially accepted there would be more people who identify themselves as such. The reason I do say that there would be more that identify themselves as homosexuals and not that there would be more is because I do believe that there are many people in our culture, where homosexuality is often looked down upon and as abnormal, who are homosexual but because of the social stigma on homosexuality they do not engage in it or admit to it if they have. It is hard to make an accurate assessment on this because we do not have solid statistics that prove that there are more homosexuals in cultures where it is accepted compared to our own culture. We do not have these statistics and likely never will because of the reason I gave earlier. It is all speculation and strictly observation and opinion.
So I do believe that morality is culturally defined but to an extent. There will always be the “deviants” who go against the cultural norms of their particular society but really they are just the only ones willing to admit it and openly go against it. There will always be an unheard voice of deviants who will never admit to being such a thing. They are the ones who could help take the minority of deviants into the public eye as a strong force who could possibly change the norms of their culture.
Realizing what my culture deems normal and abnormal is very important for me to know and anyone else to know who is trying to minister to people. If I do not know what is culturally accepted and what is not how can I give an accurate theological argument about a specific topic that comes up? Knowing what makes a “deviant” in today’s culture helps me identify who may be struggling with certain aspects of their life because they are afraid of the consequences of that aspect. As a follower of Christ and someone looking to show God’s love it is important for me to know who may be struggling and in need of help. And hopefully I can help them from a Christian point of view and not necessarily a culturally driven point of view. The Bible tells us to not be of this world, and that means to extract ourselves from all the cultural differences of what is morally accepted and what is not. Instead of dwelling on whether something is culturally accepted we are called to focus on whether is accepted in God’s eyes. Every culture differs on what they consider morally good, but God does not differ in the slightest. He gave us his word in the form of Christ and The Bible and we need to strive to live how Christ lived and how he taught us. Christ was considered a “deviant” in his time; he went against many cultural norms. This is why we need to extract ourselves from the world and its many different cultures. We have to be in the world but we certainly do not have to be of it.