Universals: Common Ground or
Potential Prison?
Anthropological studies of diverse international
cultures over the history of time indicate certain ethical similarities which can
easily be construed as human universals, abstracts independent of time and
space similar to Plato’s forms. At best,
the implications of inherent similarities in humans involve collective morals
that separate the human race from animals and create a foundation for
understanding across cultural barriers.
At worst, the implications of ethical universals lead to intolerance,
attempts at homogeneity, and oppressive standards that confine human behavior. With the increase of globalization and the
widespread use of the Internet and other forms of rapid communication over long
distances, the boundaries between the world’s cultures are fading into a sort
of emerging universal culture and an emerging universal code of ethics that
follows the spread of other ideas.
Acknowledgement of individualism, a
self-determined human essence independent of culture and unique to every human
being, and the impact of emotions familiar to all humanity is the most logical way
to accept the doctrine of universals without acceding to homogeneity and
inevitably in ethical choices as a result of cultural surroundings. Freedom of choice helps humans retain the
ability to change ethical norms in their culture, and as long as humans effect
change through progressive (or regressive) decision-making, there will be
ethical evolution and shifts in what once were considered universals.
The historical
search for universals can be defined as a search for a higher truth, one that
defies all human boundaries of time and space (Harmon and Holam 428). A simplified example would be that everything
that is white has whiteness in common (Armstrong 18). The concepts origins lie in the forms of
Plato’s theory of knowledge which contends that mankind has a dim memory of
ideal forms it was alienated from by birth.
According to Plato, man should strive in every way possible to retrieve
memories of this knowledge of the forms in order to attain true happiness
(180-192). Aristotle later argued for
another theory of universals that denied a separate plane of existence for
forms or universals and supported the concept that universals are more like
identical characteristics objects share in common with one other (Wikipedia). Two different philosophical views of
universals emerged as time passed. The
more traditional view of universals is the substance-attribute theory that
argues that objects can exist independently of their particulars or
characteristics (Armstrong 59-60). A
more modern view adopted by philosophers like Russell is the bundle theory with
universals that argues that objects are simply a bundle of particulars (Wikipedia).
Others argue that the bundle theory with tropes or instances of characteristics
is more plausible (Armstrong 62).
The most readily available example
of potential universals in daily life is of universal ethics, moral guidelines
common to all humankind regardless of time and space. Because anthropologists study the evolution
of man over time and the differences and similarities between the world’s
cultures, anthropology is an excellent field to explore in seeking to validate
a theory of ethical universals. As Ruth
Benedict reasons, “ ‘It is quite possible that a modicum of what is considered
right and wrong could be disentangled that is shared by the whole human race’ ”
(Edel 27).
May and Abraham
Edel define the anthropological idea of how ethics come about as a balanced
product of innovative problem-solving according to new, demanding situations
and inherited sets of rules and regulations meant to preserve some semblance of
societal order (267). The notion that
some of the rules and regulations are similar from culture to culture has some
grounding in solid fact and observation.
Anthropologists Frank Boas, Ralph Linton, and Clyde Kluckhohn find
certain ideas of what is ethical that every culture embraces (Edel 27-28). Examples of these are frowning on incest,
rape, disloyalty, unrestricted violence and/or anger, dishonesty, and shirking
from obligations and commitments. Reciprocity, loyalty in given situations,
fair exchanges, sacrificing certain liberties and possessions for the good of
the community, family ties, and respect for the bond between parent and child
are generally viewed as agreeable.
Linton even goes so far as to argue, “ ‘societies everywhere have moral
principles in common but with different emphases’ ” (Edel 28).
Other academicians
recognize ethical universals evident in anthropology differently. MacBeath allows that all cultures have the
universal aim of fulfillment. Karl
Duncker, however, implies that the meanings behind acts are ethical or
unethical rather than the acts themselves (Edel 29); thus, murder in given
cultures at specified times can be considered ethical by that culture without
the culture accepting murder in itself as ethical. Similarly, Morris Ginsberg believes moral
differences can sometimes be eliminated “by recognizing that they are often
different means to similar ends, different weightings assigned to common
principles, or based on differences in social contexts” (Edel 28). Regardless of differences between theories
relating the manifestation of universals in a cultural context, the possibility
of universals in itself is well supported by anthropological evidence.
The historical enemy of the theory of universals is
relativism. Ethical relativism adheres
to the principle that the arguments concerning what is ethical and what is not
are so diverse in every culture that there is no possibility for the existence
of universal ethical rules or a common ethical foundation among mankind
(Jacquette 593). Lawrence Hinman
asserts, “(t)here is no single absolutist position which virtually everyone
acknowledges as correct, nor is there any reason to expect that such a
consensus will emerge in the near future…Disagreement and difference are
standard features of the moral landscape” (Jacquette 611). There are two basic
types of relativism, descriptive and normative.
Descriptive relativism consists largely of the novel observation that every
individual and every society has its own beliefs of what is ethical; whereas,
normative relativism is the belief that “each moral code is only valid relative
to the culture in which it exists” (Jacquette 597).
Other
opponents of the theory of universals include thinkers like Karl Marx, Rosa
Luxemburg, and Hannah Arendt. Marx
produces the notion that there are no Platonic ideals or ethical universals but
rather that “ ‘…the ideal is nothing other than the material world reflected by
the human mind,’ ” implying that it is entirely subjective, although it has
been assumed that Marx eventually follows a sort of bundle theory of common
characteristics regarding what human nature might entail (Venable 7, 22). Luxemburg argues that ethics are a product of
interaction with other human beings, and this view closely resembles relativism
while focusing human ethics towards individual experience (Nye 231). In a similar manner, Arendt goes one step
further, declaring all the “…meaning (of all actions) is determined by other
actors and judges” (Nye 230). According
to Andrea Nye, Arendt also proclaims “goodness” an “energy” incapable of being
a form, ideal, or object (231).
Ethical relativism
has several critical weaknesses. David
Wong’s admission that “(m)orality serves two universal human needs. It
regulates conflicts of interest between people, and it regulates
conflicts of interest within the individual born of different desires and
drives that cannot all be satisfied at the same time” (Presbey, et al 480) can
be seen as grounds for accepting at least the groundwork for ethical
universals. Differences in societal
rules and regulations seem less important in view of a common motivation acting
behind the rules, such as the theories of several anthropologists including
Duncker, MacBeath, and Ginsberg imply.
Beginning from the point of a common motive clarifies similarities not
otherwise noticed. For example, the existence of patricide, discussed by Alain
Locke in his essay “A Functional View of Value Ultimates,” is not evidence that
not every culture condemns the killing of parents. Instead it is evidence that it is a cultural
universal to honor familial bonds especially connections to one’s parents
because patricide is a sign of respect (Presbey, et al 473-474). Elmar
Holenstein makes a strong case for similarities in language and human
development as further evidence of types of universals according to a recent
model. “Nature, brain, culture, and language are to a large extent the outcome
of co-evolution in the early stages of human history” (Holenstein 7).
The
doctrine of relativism is also greatly weakened by complaints that it incites
the evil of ethical subjectivism which allows each individual to decide what is
ethical for him/herself (Jacquette 599).
This extremist perspective contends that the unique characteristics of
every individual’s surroundings and experiences warrant such a frightening view
of ethics, but if random serial murder is truly ethical because it is ethical
in one’s mind after a peculiar upbringing, there seems to be no reason in human
beings to distinguish them from animals. The dangers of subjectivism are also
far too close to the views of Marx, Luxemburg, and Arendt for comfort.
The absence of universals can lead to subjectivism
and the potential justification of acts that most individuals would consider
heinous, but the existence of ethical universals has other, more practical,
philosophical implications as well.
Ethical universals can be seen as indications of almost a Jungian collective
unconscious, a shared human foundation that could hold clues to the purpose of
life on Earth. Reason, the trait that
distinguishes human beings from their animal counterparts, is the ability to
choose between right and wrong and to weigh the consequences of action. As a common influence on reason, ethical
universals can serve as an argument for the equality of all human beings and a
basis for the development of greater cross-cultural understanding. If every human being has familiar moral
reasoning, appeals to the shared aspects of ethical codes worldwide should help
achieve social justice because they would attack the grounds for considering
specific races, religions, cultures, or lifestyles inferior and demonstrate
that there are areas where nations and individuals can agree change must occur
and can work together to affect those changes.
The progress in the fields of human rights realized United Nations can
be seen as an excellent example of what can be built when nations unite to
reach common goals, and all it takes is a common aim to spur such
ground-breaking cooperation as technology in the modern era draws the globe’s
citizens closer together.
Unfortunately,
other more dangerous implications are inherent if ethical universals exist. The
existence of ethical universals can be construed as an infringement on free
will if a foundation as humans is heavily impacting what each individual
chooses in the face of moral dilemmas. The willingness of almost every group to
claim that it understands what the universals are and that it embodies the
“real,” human, universal values is also a serious threat to the fragile
historical development of universal tolerance. Critics argue that ethical
universals encourage intolerance by defining an inherent right and wrong and
failing to acknowledge the diversity of the human race (Presbey, et al 478).
Conflicting claims that belief in the existence of
ethical universals causes either tolerance and cooperation or intolerance and
judgmental behavior lead one to decide that the theory of ethical universals
exhibited as common motivations is the most plausible. The realization of a common humanity is
essential while the existence of varying cultural interpretations of humanness is
evident in ethical differences. The same human emotions exist in every
culture. Love, fear, anger, pride, hurt,
and joy are felt by everyone regardless of how the feelings manifest themselves
in the establishment of a code of ethics (cultural or otherwise) and subsequent
actions. Cultures and individuals need
freedom to make their own code of ethics and present what they believe the
ethical should be (Sartre 16). They are
shaped by their choices. That is what
makes every living thing rare, beautiful, and miraculous.
Works
Cited
“Aristotle’s Theory of Universals.”
Wikipedia. Online. Internet. 1 Dec. 2002. Available:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotles_theory_of_universals.
Armstrong, D.M. Universals: An
Opinionated Introduction. Boulder:
Westview Press,
1989.
“Bundle Theory.” Wikipedia.
Online. Internet. 3 Dec. 2002. Available:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundle_theory.
Edel, May and Abraham. Anthropology and Ethics: The Quest for
Moral Understanding.
Cleveland:
The Press of Case Western Reserve University, 1968.
Harmon, William, and C. Hugh
Holman. A Handbook to Literature. 7th ed. Upper
Holenstein, Elmar. “Human Equality and Intra-as well as
Intercultural Diversity.”
The
Monist Jan. 1995: 65-79.
Jacquette, Dale, ed. Philosophical Entrees: Classic and
Contemporary
Philosophy.
Nye, Andrea. Philosophia: The Thought of Rosa
Luxemburg, Simone Weil, and
Hannah
Arendt.
Plato. Republic. Trans.
G.M.A. Grube. Indianapolis: Hackett
Publishing Company, Inc,
1992.
Presbey, Gail, Karsten Struhl, and
Richard Olsen, eds. The Philosophical Quest: A
Cross-Cultural
Reader. 2nd ed. Boston:
McGraw-Hill, 2000.
Sartre, Jean-Paul. Existentialism and Human Emotions.
Trans. Lyle Stuart. A Philosophical
Library Book, 1984.
Venable, Vernon. Human Nature: The Marxian View. Cleveland: Meridian Books,
1945.