To have a better understanding of how ethical systems are not universally the same, we should first understand cultural relativism. As emphasized in Rolsaldo’s article, cultural relativism emerged in the 1920s and 1930s to explain Nazi beliefs. Nazi ethical beliefs were based on the idea of genetic inferiority, which resulted in a mass extermination. This idea was based on the Nazi’s goal of “cleaning Germany” of inherited criminal traits, which assumed that criminal behavior was determined by one’s biology. To Nazis, people were inherently criminals and dangerous to Germany’s society, therefore, they deserved to be killed. This ideology was shaped by their ethical values and to them, this action was culturally right. Today, however, this idea of genetic inferiority or of the born criminal has shifted through new sociological and scientific developments. Like the Nazi’s beliefs, the Filipino hill tribe believed headhunting to be morally right. The idea that each entity of people has its own system and beliefs is depicted in Rosaldo’s article. …show more content…
To illustrate this idea, Rosaldo explains the beliefs of the Filipino hill tribe, the Ilongots, whose people were headhunters. When conceptualizing the word “headhunting,” we may be horrified by it; however, for the Ilongots, headhunting was part of their culture and beliefs. To them, headhunting was a ritual of violence and a way of displaying manhood. Even though this practice may seem unjustifiable, we cannot judge it just based on our cultural beliefs. Indeed, it is difficult for us to understand the benefits of headhunting, as it may be difficult for Ilongots to comprehend our concept of war. Altogether, the concept of headhunting was part of the Ilongots’ culture and was perceived as normal; however, today we consider it to be horrific and perhaps abnormal. Certainly, normality and abnormality are culturally defined. As emphasized by Ruth Benedict, in order for a practice to be normal within a culture, it has to be in practice or used, otherwise it is considered abnormal. Furthermore, for Nazis and Ilongots, mass execution and headhunting were supported by their ethical values, which suggested that these practices were morally acceptable, unlike today, where these “traditions” are morally wrong because we do not engage in them. Truly, an action is considered normal when it is socially accepted. As a result of differences in cultures, it is impossible to universalize ethical values. As earlier stated, ethical values determine what is right and wrong. Therefore, to act ethically is to behave in accordance with what is morally right, which is often persistent with our cultural beliefs and practices. Considering this idea, we may agree that there is no such thing as a universal ethical system. To have a universal ethical system or moral code would encompass a set of moral rules and values that would have to be shared by all. The simple idea of thinking that we all share the same values is absurd. In addition, conflicting values exist within one’s culture. For every culture there has to be an agreement upon absolute values. For absolute values, we have to agree upon absolute moral code. However, since values differ from culture to culture, it …show more content…
Even though many people believe that the Ten Commandments are a good set of moral codes, it cannot be universalized because people still engage in adultery, murder, lying, dishonoring the mother and the father, and coveting others because in their cultures it is not considered wrong. In addition, cultural practices can be used to justify “wrong” behavior such as beheading. Terrorists do not behead because they think it is right or wrong, but because they want to strike terror into people. Undeniably, every culture has moral values that approve and limit people’s actions within that