A while back, my boyfriend put on a great audio book by an atheist author about religion, ethics, and cultural relativism. Alas, I don't know the author's name or the title of the book and my boyfriend has absolutely no idea what I'm talking about, so I can't link it directly. But it brought up some really great points and it got me thinking.
I want to try to put together some links that will help illustrate the point and summarize the main idea (although, unfortunately, I can't put it nearly as eloquently as the author did). I think it ties in perfectly with a ton of ideas we discussed in class - the privileged position of Christianity in America, universal human rights, cultural relativism (obviously), etc. - and it can be easily and effectively applied to women's rights and feminism.
The heart of the problem is essentially this: As long as an injustice is rooted in some traditional or cultural practice or belief, we cannot, as cultural relativists, object.
As ethical absolutists, however, we are free to make the assertion that some things are always wrong and unethical and we can justify action. I'm sure, upon hearing this, many people would be quick to make accusations of ethnocentrism. It is assumed that an absolutist believes that her culture is the one who has ethical behavior right. But the absolutism we're talking about has absolutely no basis in ethnocentrism. It is just the assertion that ethical behavior is not subjective.
In fact, it should be noted here that cultural relativism actually mimics ethnocentrism in that it doesn't allow us even to criticize our own culture. How can a cultural relativist say, for instance, that rape culture and its effects in her own country are unethical when rape culture is... rooted in the traditional structure of patriarchy in her country's culture? How can she really assert that anything, no matter how heinous, is wrong when she believes there is nothing she is qualified to assert is objectively wrong? She can't, really.
Ethical absolutism allows us to make the assertion that rape culture is wrong, that the subjugation of the LGBTQ community is wrong, that racism is wrong, that the recent attacks on women's access to birth control are wrong, that female genital mutilation is wrong, that circumcision is wrong, regardless of these practices' roots in our nation's or any others' cultural traditions.
But who decides what is ethical? How can anyone say they know for sure what is ethical? Well, that's another question entirely, and it's the root of the problem which we must acknowledge with absolutism. There isn't really any one person qualified to decide and, as of this moment in history, there is no way to know for sure what is ethical.
But that doesn't mean relativism is the answer. And that doesn't mean that there is no way at all to determine what is objectively ethical. Many people would contend that religion is the answer to how we determine objective ethics. This is likely not the place to get into everything wrong with that idea, but suffice it to say that it's arguable whether religion's point is even to define moral/ethical behavior. Religious texts and traditions are full of irreconcilable contradictions about what constitutes ethical behavior and they condone an incredible amount of behaviors which almost anyone would agree are absolutely unethical.
It's perfectly possible that science can actually give us the answer to the question one day. But until then, even if it never comes to pass, nothing is stopping us from doing our best to refine how we define objective ethical behavior
The bottom line is... It's not intolerant to refuse to tolerate intolerance (now say that 5 times fast).
~Jessica Franzoi
Radhika Coomaraswamy
