Cultural Relativism Ruth Benedict Summary

Kant’s Idealized Morality and Its Merit Charles Stevenson’s essay on emotivism, Ruth Benedict’s paper on cultural relativism, and Kant’s work on ethical theory offer interpretations of and opinions on the meaning of the word “good”. They also offer opposing sides in the debate in metaethics between subjectivity and objectivity in ethics. To determine which of these definitions has the most relevance and accuracy, all of these arguments will be outlined and consequently analyzed, both separately and in relation to each other. Their differences and similarities will be enumerated and described, consequently their merit will be discussed. In the end, Kant’s ethical theory will be proven to be inferior to both Stevenson’s and Benedict’s theories, due …show more content…
Her main thesis is that the types of actions and beliefs that would fall into those two categories, respectively, varies widely among various societies and cultures (Benedict 318). Basically she claims that there is no objective standpoint from which one can judge an individual’s values as inferior or superior to one’s own. After discussing the highly variable nature of normality, Benedict goes on to link normality and morality by saying that “The concept of the normal is properly a variant of the concept of the good. It is that which society has approved. A normal action is one which falls well within the limits of expected behavior for a particular society” (Benedict 318). In relation to Stevenson’s conclusion that “good” is a persuasive term used to compel others to believe something, Benedict offers the opinion that “good” simply does not exist with an objective meaning, and that morality as whole is merely a set of relative socially approved beliefs and behaviors. Therefore, normality is the only thing that forms the basis of an individual’s concept of moral