Ruth Benedict (depicted on the right, above), a 20th-century anthropologist, articulates the thinking behind the widely held view of ethical relativism. Benedict writes, “Normality...is culturally defined,” and “the concept of the normal is properly a variant of the concept of [the] good” (Benedict [from“Anthropology and the Abnormal,]” qtd. in Rosenstand, p. 146*). So, in essence, what Benedict is saying is that what any culture or society deems to be good, right, or correct action and morally good, or at least morally appropriate, behavior will in fact be such with respect to that culture or society. This leaves the door open for a wide variety of ways of life, of ethical codes, of individual behavior to be acknowledged not only as acceptable, but also as morally good.
By contrast, Christina Hoff Sommers (depicted on the left, above) argues that there are basic human virtues that are not relative to time, place, circumstance or situation. Sommers writes, “It is wrong to mistreat a child, to humiliate someone, to torment an animal. To think only of yourself, to steal, to lie, to break promises, And on the positive side: it is right to be considerate and respectful of others, to be charitable and generous.” (Sommers, qtd. in Rosenstand, p. 480*). You may want to read "Why Can't a Woman Be More Like a Man," an article written by Sommers published in the March/April, 2008 issue of The American, a publication of the American Enterprise Institute. You can link to this article by entering the "Garden of Feminist Ethics" located in the Center for Ethics & Moral Philosophy.
Explore the distinctions to be found in these two positions on ethics. With which view do you most agree or disagree? Do you, like Benedict, believe that what is morally right or wrong is completely relative to the culture or the environment and social situation in which a person is raised? Or do you