Moral and ethical relativism is an idea that ethics can not be clearly defined and that there is no universal code of ethics, ethics are relative to a given culture's beliefs, morals and values. This concept states that every culture has their own right to define their values and morals and to practice them even if people in other cultures view them as being wrong. Therefore, a specific behavior can be defined as being ethical in one culture if it is accepted and wrong in another if it is not accepted.
Typically, people who believe in ethical relativism view a policy of a universal code of ethics to be wrong, especially when it is forced upon a foreign nation by government and/or military personnel of a separate nation. In December of 1948, the United Nations established the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
This document is a set standard of how all societies should act and treat others and clearly defines the rights of all people regardless of their nation and regardless of the U.N.'s jurisdiction within foreign nations. This means that any violation of these standards by any country can be grounds for military action. Many people, especially moral relativists, believe this enforcement of such a standard is wrong. Relativism is exactly that, its "relative," meaning ethics and morals are relative to a given culture.
The U.N. however, believes they have every right to force their ideals on any culture they please; this notion completely wipes out any thought of relativism and condemns other cultures for actively practicing their own beliefs. This discrepancy between the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the fact that it actually limits the rights of other societies is the cause for much controversy. Asylum for cases involving potential human rights violations are a big topic today that is debated by relativists and people who believe in a Universal code of ethics.
The facts in the following case can be considered heart wrenching to us Americans but considered common practice in the area that it takes place in. Fauziya Kasinga is a woman of her native tribe of Togo, located in West Africa. When Fauziya was 17 years old, her aunt sold her to a man three times her age. This took place after Fauziya's father had passed away and her aunt found it necessary to banish her sister (Fauziya's mother) from the tribe and take ownership of young Fauziya.
As a condition of her marriage to the older man, she was required to participate in a tribal ritual which included removal of parts of her vagina. This practice is considered a tribal ritual but is considered FGM (Female Genital Mutilation) here in the United States. Fauziya did not believe in this cultural ritual and believed she had every right to not participate in it. Therefore, she sought asylum in the United States and was granted this protection in 1996.
Moral relativists in America believe strongly in the concept of a county's right to their own culture that even something this heart-wrenching is considered a violation of that culture and their establishment as a people. Relativists consider culture as an essential part of a given society's right to practice what they believe in, even if it is considered barbaric by even the relativist him/herself or by anyone else.
The mere action of approving someone's application for asylum in another country, in essence condemns that society for their practices and beliefs. Some believe that this judgment of one's culture is extension of "cultural imperialism" which is an imposition by the western civilization on a country and culture that is simply different than our own. A relativist believes this very imposition is wrong because it is forcing another country to adhere to our standards.
A universal approach to human rights would lead one to have sympathy for this woman based on what is believed to be in her best interest regardless of the fact that she does not adhere to the rituals in the culture from which she came. Karen Musalo, Fauziya's attorney in her application for asylum, obviously takes this side because she chose to represent her and fight for her "human rights."
Musalo's point of view is that Fauziya had every right to leave a culture that she did not believe in to search for another that she wanted to be apart of. She claimed that the U.S. should grant her asylum based on this very fact. Musalo was obviously basing her defense on article 3 and 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights. Article 3 states that everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person, and article 5 states that no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Other culture's values, morals and beliefs should always be respected and not criticized by anyone including a government of another country. However, a line must be drawn when an individual of a given culture does not believe in certain aspects of his/her culture and has the desire to become part of another.
Human beings should have the right to seek out other human beings and become apart of any group they choose, after all, we are all children of God. Just because someone does not believe in the morals of their own culture should not constitute a violation of adhering to that culture if they make their own decision to become apart of a different one. Forcing cultures and traditions on someone is wrong; people should always have a choice as to what they believe in.
