Defining what is normal to a culture creates a direct path to what that culture deems to be morally good. This assertion is best evidenced by Ruth Benedict in “Morality is Relative” when she states “Normality, in short, within a very wide range, is culturally defined.” (466). The habitualness of an act in a society speaks to its goodness as one usually acts for the betterment of their society and its conditions (466). What is moral and what is habitually good are one in the same (466), so it makes sense that a participant in society would want to conform to that society’s norms for its betterment. Behaviors that deviate from the norm are often met with either apprehension and disgust, or with acceptance (465). Cultures are constantly adapting; adopting and preserving attitudes that will better conditions for its inhabitants. It is normal to adhere to principles set by society defining exactly what good …show more content…
Good is not something that is unique to the individual. Good is not for the benefit of the minority. What is morally good is good on the principle of the act; good because it is good in nature. These principles of good are determined by society giving actions either a positive or negative connotation based on the outcome of said action. Benedict claims “Every society, beginning with some slight inclination in one direction or another, carries its preference farther and farther, integrating itself more and more completely upon its chosen basis, and discarding those types of behavior that are uncongenial.” (466). These associations, as time goes on, become so ingrained into a society that they become the principles of the people; principles to base their belief systems and actions on. Not all societal principles are aligned to one another, yet the principles are upheld because of the environment and circumstances of the society’s