Ethical Relativity

According to The Writer’s Almanac, it’s the birthday of anthropologist Franz Boas, born in 1858. Boaz stressed the need to study four fields — ethnology, linguistics, physical anthropology, and archaeology — before making any generalizations about any one culture. He trained the first generation of American anthropologists, including Ruth Benedict and Margaret Mead. He established the first Department of Anthropology in 1896, at Columbia University.

This harkens back to the concept of ethical relativity, the notion that the ethical and moral norms of a society cannot be judged by those exterior to the society itself, i.e., that there are no moral absolutes.

I’ve never understood how this is compatible with the underlying nature of the human animal.  Can’t we say that torturing people for fun and lighting our wives on fire because we’re displeased with them is categorically wrong?

Of course, in the practicalities of the real world, the insistence on human rights becomes quite vague indeed.  When the United States sees that there is gain to be made, we couldn’t care less about the wanton abuses of humanity that are occurring in Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Israel, China, Turkey, the Philippines, and even North Korea. However, we’re very good about standing up for humankind when there is nothing on the line.