(no subject)

[sophiaserpentia]

The past few days my thoughts have been on the matter of ethical relativism. This is the idea that ethics are partially or entirely "subjective," or variable from one person to the next.

I am not an ethical relativist. That is to say, I believe that no matter what approach and logic we start with, we should end up with a fairly consistent core set of ethical principles. The details may vary from one system to the next, but I think that most people, and most ethical approaches, would recommend a fairly consistent set of actions for given types of situations.

I am also, on balance, a consequentialist. This approach suggests that ethics are "situational," IOW that there are no ethical absolutes, but rather sets of principles that have to be weighed for each situation. Consequentialism is on the whole a pragmatic approach, which makes me fret a bit, because I don't feel that ends always justify means. But this is all stuff that I'm sorting out at present, and lucky you, you get to see my thoughts and perhaps play a role in helping them formulate.

Now, consider this excerpt, which is quoted on this page on ethical relativism:

We might suppose that in the matter of taking life all peoples would agree on condemnation. On the contrary, in the matter of homicide, it may be held that one kills by custom his two children, or that a husband has a right of life and death over his wife or that it is the duty of the child to kill his parents before they are old. It may be the case that those are killed who steal fowl, or who cut their upper teeth first, or who are born on Wednesday. Among some peoples, a person suffers torment at having caused an accidental death; among others, it is a matter of no consequence. Suicide may also be a light matter, the recourse of anyone who has suffered some slight rebuff, an act that constantly occurs in a tribe. It may be the highest and noblest act a wise man can perform. The very tale of it, on the other hand, may be a matter for incredulous mirth, and the act itself, impossible to conceive as human possibility. Or it may be a crime punishable by law, or regarded as a sin against the gods. (Ruth Benedict, Patterns of Culture, pp. 45-46)

I'm not sure from the context whether or not Benedict's examples given above are actually to be found, or are simply illustrative. But in either case my thought is that societies where homicide has been more acceptable (probably considered akin to euthanasia) are not the ones which have succeeded; is this a coincidence, or could it be the case that in the long run or on the average, societies with a more "sound" set of ethics tend to prevail? I know I'm getting into shaky territory there, but I am not convinced for example that military might has always prevailed.

Comments

[akaiyume.livejournal.com]

I am brain dead right now (anyone who reads my journal knows why) but I am certain that some of the examples given where factual and not just "for examples". Specifically, the case of children killing their parents before they were too old. I can't recall the exact culture at the moment, but I believe it was practiced among the tribes who inhabited the far northern islands of Japan and possibly among the Inuits too. The idea was that resources were very scarce and when a person became too infirm to contribute to the survival of the village it was a noble thing to die. The child, usually a son, would carry the parent up into the mountains (usually by this time the parent was too infirm to make the trip walking) and leave the parent to die of exposure in the cold. It was considered a noble death, and accepted as necessary by all parties in question.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Thank you. I was hoping to get input from you on this, because of your educational background. The one I questioned was about children being killed because they were born on a Wednesday, or because they were first to cut their teeth.

What do you think of my rough thesis -- that societies with better ethics tend to fare better, thus leading over time to positive evolution in the ethical understanding? I know this verges more on sociology than anthropology, but it's bound to be controvercial, especially since military might has tended to draw the interest of most historians. I'm far from convinced that military might is the best or ultimate gauge of a society's long-term success.