Anthropology and ethics Part I

The idea that there are no moral universals is held by a significant portion of the population. According to this school of thought, there is so much variance from one culture to another that there is not a single moral concept or judgement that is generally accepted. This has already been disproven by the evidence that was provided. Obviously, the general ideas that have been presented up until this point are implemented in ways that are extremely diverse from one another. In conventional Chinese society, "the duty of children to their parents" meant one thing, whereas in modern Western communities, "the duty of children to their parents" signifies something entirely different. However, in almost every human society, showing concern for one's relatives and engaging in acts of reciprocity are valued highly. In addition, the practise of killing or injuring other members of the group is restricted in every society for the obvious reasons that this should be the case.

After getting through this first point of agreement, the differences in ethical perspectives quickly become more obvious than the commonalities. The history of mankind is riddled with examples of such enduring curiosities. According to the ancient Greek historian Herodotus, who passed away between 430 and 420 BCE, King Darius I of Persia (550–486 BCE) once called a group of Greeks before him and inquired as to how much money he would need to give them in order for them to consume the remains of their deceased parents. They did not want to undertake it under any circumstances. Then he gathered a group of Indians who, according to their culture, consumed the flesh of their dead parents and inquired as to what would convince them to set their fathers' bodies on fire. The Native Americans yelled at him, begging him not to bring up such a heinous deed. Herodotus reached the obvious conclusion that each nation is convinced that its own practises are the most effective.

Variations in morals were not systematically examined until the 19th century, when Western understanding of the more remote portions of the globe began to develop. Prior to that time, the study of variations in morals was conducted in an ad hoc manner. Edward Westermarck, a Finnish anthropologist who lived from 1862 until 1939, published a book titled The Origin and Development of Moral Ideas (1906–1908) in which he compared the ways in which different societies viewed the wrongfulness of killing (including killing in warfare, euthanasia, suicide, infanticide, abortion, human sacrifice, and duelling); the duty to support children, the elderly, or the poor; forms of permissible sexual relationship; the status of women; the right Westermarck had little trouble showing that various communities have vastly diverse standards for what constitutes moral behaviour in any of these domains. Studies that are more recent, but less thorough, have proved that human communities may and do prosper despite holding dramatically different views about all such topics. Obviously, particular sections within a community may perform less well under some sets of beliefs than others, but these studies have confirmed that human societies can and do flourish while holding radically different opinions about all such matters.