Is morality relative? Ruth Benedict and James Rachels have opposing views on this conroversial question. Benedict, "a foremost American anthropologist who taught at Columbia University" (Pojman 370) believes that morality is relative to one's culture and that one's behavior which is deemed moral or immoral is dependent upon cultural norms. Her argument is as such:1. Different cultures have radically different moral codes2. There are no objective moral principles i.e. all moral principles are culturally relativeRachels, "a professor at the University of Alabama" (Pojman 375) disagrees with Benedict and believes that morality is not relative. Furthermore he holds Benedicts "Cultural differences argument" to be invalid.One who sides with Bendedict would also agree with a quote from her book "Patterns of Culture" that "morality differs in every society and is a convenient term for socially approved habits." This quote seems logical, simply stated it means cultures approve of rituals and beliefs that the entire society shares. Society defines what is moral at a certain point in time. Morality is adaptive and can shange over time, however it is still dependent upon its culture to decide whether it is accepted or not accepted. For example, in the early twentieth century, pre-marital sex was considered a huge sin and looked down upon with disgrace. A person's entire character was jeopordized if they had participated in pre-marital sex. Today however, although pre-marital sex is not considered virtuous, society does not cast aside those who have sex before marriage. It is considered normal as a matter of fact to have several partners before marriage, that is , if you even decide to get married (another topic that has lost importance over time).Certain cultural norms may change over time, however using the same example (pre-marital) some cultures are just radically different. For instance, some African tribes are known to sew a woma...
