44
Chapter 11 — Ethical Relativism (pp. 433 – 458)
Chapter 11 starts with two case studies (pp. 433 – 438) each is set in a fictional, and apparently third
world, country. In each, an American employer operates a plant in the fictitious country.
In the first, an employee is slapped by one of his fellow nationals for refusing to take proper safety
precautions, suffers some permanent injury, but accepts his countryman’s apology, although the
American company has a policy of termination for physical violence.
In the second, the question of integrity is raised in a hypothetical in which a national is about to be
fired for substandard performance, and his fellow-countryman supervisor is willing to say both that
his work was substandard and that he might be re-employed if the factory expands (although the
company and everyone in the supervisory positions know they will never re-hire him).
Apparently this claim of potential for re-employment would allow the fired employee to save face
with family and his fellow villagers in this culture.
One American supervisor is in favor of firing the man in this manner, while another thinks it violates
the standards of integrity to be dishonest in this way. (As an aside, is it expected that the man will
really think this is a valid offer, or will he know exactly what is going on? Does it ethically matter
what the fired employee understands?)
Article: “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism” by James Rachels (pp. 438 – 447)
Cultural relativism is generally presupposed to be the theory that different societies have different
moral codes, and that these codes are just that — “different” — one is not better or worse, they just
seem that way based on which is closer to one’s own beliefs.