Morality and the Happiness Equilibrium
Throughout history, civilizations have formed into different political and social structures. Differing customs have risen, shaped by various factors such as geography and population density. As cultures expanded and interacted with each other, it was discovered that what was viewed to be ethical in one society could be viewed as morally corrupt in a neighboring land. This discovery led men to question what it meant to act ethically. As philosophers have pondered over these findings, two main questions have emerged. First, is morality relative depending on location, and second, assuming some form of universal morality exists, what actions should be taken by individuals and society to ensure that morality is sustained? Through this essay, I will answer those questions, by examining the difference between cultural practice and societal ethics, and then explain what must be done by both individuals and governments in order to preserve morality.
The ancient Greek historian Herodotus presented one of the earliest arguments for moral relativism. In his History, he argues that because the Greeks refuse to eat the corpses of their fathers but have no qualm with burning them, and the Callatians refuse to burn the corpses of their fathers but have no problem with being cannibalistic, that morality is simply a custom (420-421). Ruth Benedict, one of the foremost anthropologists of the twentieth century also agrees with this view. She states, “We recognize that morality differs in every society and is a convenient term for socially approved habits” (428).
While these views acutely show that customs and values can occasionally change depending on the culture, they fail to acknowledge that some social practices are harmful and degrading. In her book, Sex and Social Justice, Martha Nussbaum examines the cultural practice of female genital mutilation (FGM). She states that there is initially the tendency to feel that the criticism of FGM is ethnocentric and thus undeserved. Nussbaum writes, however, that “Female genital mutilation is linked to extensive and in some cases lifelong health problems” (442,449). She continues, “We should continue to keep FGM on the list of unacceptable practices that violate women’s human rights.” Nussbaum expounds on her view that a cultural practice is deplorable when it takes away the rights of other people.
In some ways, she coincides with W.T. Staces view on morality. In his writings, Stace explains that although the particulars of culture change depending on the place, there is a fundamental law of altruism that permeates all moral nations. He states, “We should look, amid differing moral systems, not for a consensus of opinions upon the particular duties of life, or the particular maxims of morality, but for some recognition of the general law of morals. This general law is the principle of altruism” (46). The practice of FGM however, does not align with the principle of altruism as it takes away the rights of women and only benefits men who wish to keep women under their control. FGM, therefore, is a social practice which brings harm to female members of cultures which partake in it, and is therefore a universally immoral tradition.
--
yE frE me Kweku Ananse Papa
me:http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/1508/masterplumgm3.jpg