What is ethically wrong in one culture may be acceptable in another culture?

If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website.

If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.

... Goodshoot/Goodshoot/Getty Images

Ethical or cultural relativism is a philosophical theory about the nature of morality. Fundamentally, relativists argue that no universal moral rules exist, and that all morality needs to be understood from the perspective of what the culture considers acceptable. They also suggest that every culture's moral system is equally valid because there is no universal standard about what is good or bad.

Explore this article

1 Cultural Differences

Cultures differ widely in terms of moral practices, even on ethical issues where you might expect universal agreement. Anthropologist Ruth Benedict, who has written extensively on the topic in her book "Patterns of Culture," gives the example of homicide. She points out that in some cultures a husband has rights over his wife's life and death, or that a child has a duty to kill his parents before they get old. Similarly, some cultures condemn suicide, while in others regard it as noble (ref. 1) These types of moral differences raise a question about whether or not any universal ethical principles exist, and underpin the arguments for ethical relativism.

2 Ethical Relativism

Ethical relativism's main premise is that morality is relative to cultural norms. An ethical norm is something that the majority of people in a culture consider acceptable behavior. So, whether an action is considered right or wrong depends on the society you live in. Ethical relativists don't believe in the existence of universal moral standards, i.e. morals followed by all people throughout history. Ethical relativism is not a popular theory among ethicists because it provides no structure to resolve moral disputes between countries.

3 Ethical Relativism - Problems

Ethical relativists argue that you can't judge the morals of other cultures. This is quite different to taking a cultural perspective of another country's ethical norms, and understanding how and why such rules are acceptable even your norms disagree. The non-judgmental approach of relativists presents a problem -- it's impossible to evaluate the ethics of any action. If you take cultural relativism to its logical conclusion, for example, you say that cannibalism is wrong. (ref. 1 and 3)

4 Agreement on Moral Principles

Another potential flaw in the ethical relativist argument is that cultures might agree on a broad principle, but differ in how they act on it. For example, many cultures value caring for parents. However, one culture may advocate killing parents before they become infirm, so that they are healthy in the afterlife. Another culture demands that widowed parents live with their children. Some cultural norms are relative, such as dress codes and sexual morality; however, cultures often agree on issues such as slavery or torture

About the Author

Based in London, Eleanor McKenzie has been writing lifestyle-related books and articles since 1998. Her articles have appeared in the "Palm Beach Times" and she is the author of numerous books published by Hamlyn U.K., including "Healing Reiki" and "Pilates System." She holds a Master of Arts in informational studies from London University.

Some schools of thought believe that everyone has their own ethics. This means what is considered right or wrong depends on the time, place, and even the particular preferences or practices of a group of people or individual person.

While we all have our cultural and individual differences, can we also accept that each one of us can choose what is morally right and wrong?

Of course, there are cultural and individual differences. In some cultures, people may think it is wrong to place your elbows on the dinner table, while in others it is totally acceptable. Some people may prefer drinking tea and others coffee. While we should be tolerant and respectful of cultural differences, should we also accept all cultural practices as morally right?

To further explore this issue we need to clarify that normative ethics deals with how we should behave and live our lives, particularly when our actions affect others. However, we do not always, as individuals or societies, do what we should. Looking at specific times and places we can understand why people behave the way they do. This, however, does not mean they should have.

Take slavery, for example. It was legal in the UK until 1833, and in the US until 1865. In Australia, the indentured labour of Indigenous people and South Sea Islanders in the 19th and 20th centuries was akin to slavery. Yet many Europeans at the time saw nothing wrong with it. 

Even when we agree that certain behaviours are wrong, they may still be widespread. For instance, bribery is considered wrong and it is illegal in every nation, but in some countries it is very common. 

Some people believe ethics is relative. If we accept that everyone can choose what is morally right and wrong, then we cannot and should not evaluate the moral actions of others.

Another view is there is a common morality that applies to everyone, everywhere, at all times. A common morality is based on high-level principles such as respect for people’s autonomy and respect for justice. This common morality applies to all specific moral codes, so it allows us to make judgements about all behaviours. 

"...we do not always, as individuals or societies, do what we should do."

What, then, is the accounting profession’s position on moral behaviour? The global acceptance of the Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants would seem to show that, within the profession, there are agreed common moral values, which apply to accountants across the globe. 

The International Federation of Accountants (IFAC), created in 1977, represents about 2.8 million accountants in 130 countries, working in public practice, commerce or not-for-profit organisations. CPA Australia was one of its 63 founding member organisations. 

IFAC member bodies are obliged to have no less stringent ethical requirements than those of the Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants issued by the International Ethics Standards Board for Accountants (IESBA). In Australia, the Code is incorporated in Accounting Professional and Ethical Standards 110 Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants. It applies to all CPA Australia members, regardless of who they are or where they are working.

While the choice of tea or coffee is yours alone, the Code outlines your ethical responsibilities to your clients and peers. 

What is ethically acceptable or unacceptable is dependent on one culture?

Can one culture be right and another be wrong?

What is considered appropriate in one culture may not be appropriate in another culture?

Why is cultural relativism at some way not acceptable in ethics?