In Ruth Benedict’s article “A defense of ethical relativism”, she says that “most individuals are plastic to the molding force of the society into which they are born…the majority of
mankind quite readily take any shape that is presented to them” (Benedict 4). In her writing, she explains that long exposure to a societies general ideas, beliefs, and traits, causes a person to believe those such things. Though, if someone is not following and abiding to those beliefs and ideas, they would essentially be wrong. I think that environment has a very large affect on views and the way we each think. If you were more exposed to one ideology than another, I think it’s more likely that you will believe that ideology you were taught. This can almost be applied to the debate of “nature vs nurture”, where the question is, are we who we because of biology, or are we made to be who we are. It seems that Benedict would take the side of nurture. If her thoughts on ethical relativism is true, debates can be settled on polls. I think this is some what obscure and almost too simple to say. There are many topics and issues that are extremely complex that a poll can’t necessarily decide, not to mention the room for error. Personally, I believe that there is right, wrong, and the in between and many types of opinions don’t fall in those categories. I think the biggest issues with ethical relativism is that is somewhat disregards morals, and the conversation for right and wrong. Though, it is a good guide. I see opinions on a spectrum and there is a point where morals, logic, and opinions almost meet. I do think, though, that Benedict’s position is logical. You can see this through out most of history, where things were accepted and not ever questioned. A good example would be slavery and colonization, and how during that time, it was perfectly fine to own humans and treat them is horrific ways. Now, times have drastically changed. Culture is continuously changing and because of that, I think the idea of ethical relativism is wobbly, and not a solid way to determine rights and wrongs, or a dilemma. Benedict gives an example that someone is born to play a certain role in their family or culture, if they fail to succeed, they are seen as abnormal and that they have essentially betrayed their culture. The way I see it is that this is a very weak claim. For something like culture to change, which it always is, someone must make that change and divert from the normal. Then, that is when others will follow.

word count: 419