DOWNLOAD (MS-Word document)

Cultural Relativism

文化相對主義

安德遜著（Kerby Anderson），孔祥烱譯

The central premise of this book is that ethics should be rooted in the Bible and biblical principles. But many philosophical systems of ethics do not start with this biblical presupposition. The following is a brief summary of the more popular contemporary ethical systems that rest on secular assumptions rather than a biblical foundation.	這本書的大前提是：倫理學應該是植根於聖經和聖經的原則。但是，許多哲學系統的道德觀不以聖經的前提為出發點。下面是一個簡單的撮要，介紹當代流行的倫理系統，他們基於世俗的假設，而不是聖經的基礎。
CULTURAL RELATIVISM	文化相對主義
Any student in a class on anthropology cannot help but notice the differences between various cultures of the world. Differences in dress, diet, and social norms are readily apparent. Such diversity in terms of ethics and justice are also easily seen and apparently shaped by the culture in which we live.	任何一個人類學學生不能避免注意到世界各個文化的差異。在衣著上、飲食上、社會規範上的差異是顯而易見的；在道德和正義方面的多樣化也很容易看到，而且也明顯地被我們生活於其中的文化所塑造。
If there is no transcendent ethical standard, then culture often becomes the ethical norm for determining whether an action is right or wrong. This ethical system is known as cultural relativism. Cultural relativism is the view that all ethical truth is relative to a specific culture. Whatever a cultural group approves is considered right within that culture. Conversely, whatever a cultural group condemns is wrong.	如果沒有超越經驗的道德標準，那麼，文化往往成為倫理規範，用來決定一項行動是否是對還是錯。這個道德系統被稱為「文化相對主義」。文化相對主義認為，所有道德真理都相對於一個特定的文化；這一個文化群體所批准的所有事便是對的，相反地，所有被譴責的事便是錯的。
The key to cultural relativism is that right and wrong can only be judged relative to a specified society. No ultimate standard of right and wrong exists by which to judge culture.	文化相對主義的關鍵在於﹕正確和錯誤的判斷完全相對於一個特定的社會，判斷一個文化並沒有正確和錯誤的最終標準。
A famous proponent of this view was John Dewey, often considered the father of American education. He taught that moral standards were like language and therefore the result of custom. Language evolved over time and eventually became organized by a set of principles known as grammar. But language also changes over time to adapt to the changing circumstances of its culture. Likewise, Dewey said, ethics were also the product of an evolutionary process. No fixed ethical norms exist. Rather, ethics are merely the result of particular cultures attempting to organize a set of moral principles. But these principles can also change over time to adapt to the changing circumstances of the culture. This would also mean that different forms of morality evolved in different communities. Thus, there are no universal ethical principles. What may be right in one culture would be wrong in another culture, and vice versa.	這觀點的一個著名的倡導者是杜威（John Dewey），他通常被認為是美國教育之父。他認為道德標準就像語言一樣是慣例的結果；語言隨著時間演變，最終隨著一套原則而組織，就成了語言的文法；但語言也隨著時間改變，以適應文化的轉移而不斷改變。杜威認為，道德也同樣地是一個進化過程的產物，固定的道德標準並不存在；相反地，倫理學僅僅是特定文化嘗試組織一套道德原則的結果。但是，這些原則也隨著時間而改變，以適應不斷變化的文化環境。結果是不同形式的道德在不同的群體中發展；因此，普遍的道德原則並不存在。對一種文化是對的事，在另一種文化可以是錯的，反之亦然。
Although it is hard for us in the modern world to imagine, a primitive culture might value genocide, treachery, deception, and even torture. While we may not like these traits, a true follower of cultural relativism could not say that these acts are wrong since they are merely the product of cultural adaptation.	雖然現代世界的人很難想像，原始文化的確可能認為滅絕種族、背叛、欺詐、甚至酷刑都有價值。雖然我們可能不喜歡這些行為，但文化相對主義的忠實追隨者卻不能說這些行為是錯誤的，因為行為僅僅是文化適應過程的產物。
A key figure who expanded on Dewey’s ideas was William Graham Sumner of Yale University. He argued that what our conscience tells us depends solely upon our social group. The moral values we hold are not part of our moral nature, according to Sumner. They are part of our training and upbringing.	耶魯大學的薩納（William Graham Sumner）是擴展杜威思想的關鍵人物；他認為，我們的良知告訴我們的事，完全取決於我們的社會群體；我們持守的道德價值觀並非源於我們的道德本性，只不過是我們的訓練和養育的一部分。
Sumner argued in his book Folkways: “World philosophy, life policy, right, rights, and morality are all products of the folkways.” In other words, what we perceive as conscience is merely the product of culture upon our minds through childhood training and cultural influence. There are no universal ethical principles, merely different cultural conditioning.	薩納在他的著作《民間風俗》中說：「世界哲學、對生命的政策、正義、權利和道德全部都是民間風俗的產品。」換句話說，我們所認識的良心，只不過是我們的頭腦通過童年的訓練和文化影響而來的產物，普及全人類的道德原則並不存在，僅僅有不同的文化制約。
Sumner studied all sorts of societies (primitive and advanced) and was able to document numerous examples of cultural relativism. Although many cultures promoted the idea, for example, that a man could have many wives, Sumner discovered that in Tibet a woman was encouraged to have many husbands. He also described how some Eskimo tribes allowed deformed babies to die by being exposed to the elements. In the Fiji Islands, aged parents were killed.	薩納研究了各種各樣的社會（原始的和先進的），並提供了許多文化相對主義的例子。例如，雖然在許多文化中推行一夫多妻的觀念，薩納卻發現在西藏鼓勵一妻多夫；他也描述愛斯基摩人如何容許將畸形嬰兒暴露在曠野中死去，而斐濟群島的人亦殺害年老的父母。
Sumner believed that this diversity of moral values clearly demonstrated that culture is the sole determinant of our ethical standards. In essence, culture determines what is right and wrong. And different cultures come to different ethical conclusions.	薩納認為，這種道德價值的多樣性清楚地表明，文化是我們的道德標準的唯一決定因素；實質上，文化決定什麼是正確的和錯誤的，而不同的文化達到不同的道德結論。
Proponents of cultural relativism believe that this cultural diversity proves that culture alone is responsible for our morality. There is no soul or spirit or mind or conscience. Moral relativists say that what we perceive as moral convictions or conscience are the by-products of culture.	文化相對主義者認為，文化的多樣性証明了文化單獨決定了我們的道德觀。靈、魂、思想或良心都不存在，我們所瞭解的道德信條或良心只是文化的副產品。
The strength of cultural relativism is that it allows us to withhold moral judgments about the social practices of another culture. In fact, proponents of cultural relativism would say that to pass judgment on another culture would be ethnocentric. This strength, however, is also a major weakness. Cultural relativism excuses us from judging the moral practices of another culture. Yet we all feel compelled to condemn such actions as the Holocaust or ethnic cleansing. Cultural relativism as an ethical system, however, provides no foundation for doing so.	文化相對主義有利之處，在於它容許我們對另一種文化的社會習慣不作道德判斷。事實上，文化相對主義者認為，判斷另一種文化就表現了民族優越感。然而，這長處亦是很大的弱點；文化相對主義寬容我們不需要判斷另一種文化的道德實踐，但我們仍然被催迫去譴責像大屠殺或種族淨化之類的行動；但是，作為一個道德系統的文化相對主義卻沒有基礎支持這類譴責。
Melville J. Herskovits wrote in Cultural Relativism: “Judgments are based on experience, and experience is interpreted by each individual in terms of his own enculturation.” In other words, a person’s judgment about what is right and wrong is determined by his or her cultural experiences, which would include everything from childhood training to cultural pressures to conform to the majority views of the group. Herskovits further argued that even the definition of what is normal and abnormal is relative to culture.	赫斯歌維（Melville J. Herskovits）在《文化相對主義》一書中說：「判斷是基於經驗，而經驗源於每個人自己的文化培育。」換言之，一個人如何判斷什麼是正確和錯誤，取決於他的文化經驗，包括一切自童年起的訓練、文化的壓力、和依從群體中大多數人的意見。赫斯歌維更指出，一個行為正常或不正常的定義亦相對於文化。
Herskovits believed that because cultures are flexible, ethical norms change over time to meet new cultural pressures and demands. When populations are unstable and infant mortality is high, cultures value life and develop ethical systems to protect it. When a culture is facing overpopulation, that culture redefines ethical systems and even the value of life. Life is valuable and sacred in the first society. Mercy killing might become normal and acceptable in the second society.	赫斯歌維認為，由於文化是柔韌的，所以倫理規範會隨著時間而改變，適應新的文化壓力和需要。當人口不穩定，並且嬰兒死亡率很高之時，文化就重視生命，也發展道德系統去保護生命；當文化面臨人口過剩，該文化就重新定義道德系統和生命的價值。在前面的社會中，生命是寶貴的，是神聖的；在後面的社會中，人道殺人就變為正常的，可接受的。
Polygamy might be a socially acceptable standard for society. But later, that society might change its perspective and believe that it is wrong for a man to have more than one wife. Herskovits believed that whatever a society accepted or rejected became the standard of morality for the individuals in that society.	在過去，多配偶婚姻也許是社會可接受的標準；但後來，社會可能改變其觀點，並認為一夫多妻是錯誤的。赫斯歌維認為，無論一個社會接受或拒絕的事，就成為這個社會的個人道德標準。
Herskovits contended that “the need for a cultural relativistic point of view has become apparent because of the realization that there is no way to play this game of making judgment across cultures except with loaded dice.” Ultimately, he believed, culture determines our moral standards and attempting to compare, or contrast cultural norms is futile.	赫斯歌維主張：「一個文化需要接受相對主義的觀點，因為很明顯地，除了用不公平的方法外，人類沒有辦法作橫跨文化的判斷。」他認為，文化最終決定我們的道德標準，嘗試比較或對比文化規範是徒勞的。
In a sense, the idea of cultural relativism has helped encourage such concepts as multiculturalism and postmodernism. After all, if truth is created, not discovered, then all truths created by a particular culture are equally true, meaning that cultural norms and institutions should be considered equally valid if they are useful to a particular group of people within a culture. And this is one of the major problems with a view of cultural relativism: you cannot judge the morality of another culture. If no objective standard exists, then someone in one culture does not have a right to evaluate the actions or morality of another culture. Yet in our hearts we know that certain things like racism, discrimination, and exploitation are wrong.	從某程度上，文化相對主義有助於鼓勵多元文化主義與後現代主義。畢竟，如果真理是被人創造而非被發現，則任何一個文化所創造的一切真理都有相同的真實性，意思就是不同的文化規範和制度應被視為同樣正確，因為它們在一個文化內對某一群人有用處。這是文化相對主義的重大困難之一：你不能判斷另一個文化的道德觀。如果沒有客觀標準的存在，一個人便沒有權利評估另一個文化的行動或道德。然而，在我們心中，我們知道某些事是錯誤的，例如種族主義、歧視和剝削等。
Foundational to the view of cultural relativism is the theory of evolution. Since social groups experience cultural change with the passage of time, changing customs and morality evolve differently in different places and times. For example, Antony Flew, author of Evolutionary Ethics, stated his perspective this way: “All morals, ideas and ideals have been originated in the world; and that, having thus in the past been subject to change, they will presumably in the future too, for better or worse, continue to evolve.” He denied the existence of God and therefore an objective, absolute moral authority. But he also believed in the authority of a value system.	文化相對主義的根基就是進化論。由於社會群體隨著時間經驗文化轉變，風俗和道德便在不同的地區和不同的時間有不同的進化，例如弗盧（Antony Flew）在他的書《進化倫理學》陳述了他的觀點說：「所有道德、思想和理想都起源於這世界，既然在過去一直被更改，相信不論好壞，他們將在未來繼續會進化。」他否認神的存在，因此也否認客觀的、絕對的道德權威，但他卻相信一個價值系統有權威。
Flew’s theory is problematic because it does not adequately account for the origin, nature, and basis of morals. Flew suggests that morals somehow originated in this world and are constantly evolving. Even if we concede his premise, we must still ask: Where and when did the first moral value originate? Essentially, Flew is arguing that a value came from a non-value. In rejecting the biblical idea of a Creator whose character establishes a moral standard for values, Flew is forced to attempt to derive an ought from an is.	弗盧的理論是有問題的，因為它沒有充分解釋道德的起源、性質和基礎。弗盧認為，道德在世界上莫名其妙地出現，並不斷進化。即使我們接納他的前提，我們仍然必須問：第一個道德價值在哪裡及何時起源的呢？基本上，弗盧強辯說，一個「價值」起源於一個「非價值」；因為弗盧否定了一個創造者，又否定祂建立了道德價值標準，所以他被迫接納一個「是」會產生出一個「應該」來。〔譯者註：弗盧是世界最著名的無神論哲學家，他寫作了三十多本支持無神論的書，比任何人都多，他甚至可被譽為無神論的教宗，但是，他在2004年宣佈他改變他一生的立場，相信神的存在。他在2010年去世。〕
Evolutionary ethics rests upon the assumption that values are by nature constantly changing or evolving. It claims that changing values are valuable. But is this value changing? If it is not, then moral values do not have to be constantly changing. And if that is the case, then there could be unchanging values (known as absolute standards). However, if the value that values change is itself unchanging, then evolutionary ethics is self-contradictory.	進化倫理學基於一個假設，就是「價值觀本質上會不斷改變或進化」，它亦宣稱，價值觀變更的是有價值的。但是，這個價值真的在變更嗎？如果不是，則道德價值不需要不斷變更；若是這樣，不變的價值觀（絕對的標準）就可能存在。但是，如果「價值觀會變更」這個價值本身是不變的話，進化倫理學就是自相矛盾的。〔譯者註：若「價值觀會不斷變更」這個價值會改變，則這會改變的假設就不成立。若「價值觀會不斷變更」這個價值不會改變，則假設的內容就錯了。〕
Another form of evolutionary ethics is sociobiology. E. O. Wilson of Harvard University has been a major advocate of sociobiology and has claimed that scientific materialism will eventually replace traditional religion and other ideologies.	進化倫理學的另一種形式是社會生物學。哈佛大學的威爾遜（E. O. Wilson）是社會生物學的主要倡導者，他聲稱科學唯物論最終將取代傳統的宗教和其他思想系統。
According to sociobiology, human social systems have been shaped by an evolutionary process. Human societies exist and survive because they work and because they have worked in the past. One key principle of sociobiology is the reproductive imperative. The ultimate goal of any organism is to survive and reproduce. Moral systems exist because they ultimately promote human survival and reproduction. Another key principle is that a behavior is selfish at the most basic level. We love our children, according to this view, because love is an effective means of raising effective reproducers.	根據社會生物學，人類社會系統一直被進化過程所塑造；人類不同的社會能存在和存留是因為它們有適應性。社會生物學的一個關鍵原則是繁殖的必須性；任何生物的最終目標是生存和繁殖，道德系統的存在是因為他們最終促進人類的生存和繁殖。另一個關鍵原則是，所有行為在最基層都是為自我的益處；根據這個看法，我們愛我們的孩子，因為愛能提高有效的繁殖。
At the very least, sociobiology is a very cynical view of human nature and human societies. Are we really to believe that all behavior is selfish? Is there no altruism?	無論如何，社會生物學是一種對人類的本性和人類的社會非常譏誚性的看法；難道我們真的相信，所有行為都是自私的嗎？難道利他主義絕不存在嗎？
In attempting to evaluate cultural relativism, we should acknowledge that we could indeed learn many things from other cultures. We should never fall into the belief that our culture has all the answers. No culture has a complete monopoly on the truth. Likewise, Christians must guard against the assumption that their Christian perspective on their cultural experiences should be normative for every other culture.	當我們評估文化相對主義時，我們應該承認，我們確實可以從其他的文化學習許多東西；我們絕不應相信我們自己的文化擁有所有答案，因為沒有一個文化完全獨佔所有真理。同樣地，基督徒必須不會落入一個假設，以為源於自己的文化經驗所達到的基督教觀點，可以成為其他文化的規範。
However, as we have already seen, the central weakness of cultural relativism is its unwillingness to evaluate another culture. Such reluctance may seem satisfactory when we talk about language, customs, or even forms of worship. But this nonjudgmental mindset breaks down when confronted by real evils such as slavery or genocide. The Holocaust, for example, cannot be merely explained away as an appropriate cultural response for Nazi Germany.	然而，正如上面指出，文化相對主義最大的弱點是它不願意評估另一個文化。這種不情願的態度在評估語言、習俗、甚至崇拜形式上或會被人接受，但若面對真正的邪惡（如奴隸制度或種族滅絕）時，這種反審判的心態就不成立；例如，納粹德國對猶太人的大屠殺不能僅僅被解釋為一個合理的文化反應。
Cultural relativism faces other philosophical problems. For example, stating that morals originated in the world and that they are constantly changing is insufficient. Cultural relativists need to answer how value originated out of non-value. How did the first value arise?	文化相對主義亦面對其他哲學困難。例如，單單說道德起源於世界，並它們的特徵是不斷變更，這是不足夠的。文化相對主義者需要回答的是：「價值」如何能起源於「非價值」呢？第一個價值又是怎麼產生的呢？
Fundamental to cultural relativism is a belief that values change. But if the value that values change is itself unchanging, then this theory claims an unchanging value that all values change and evolve. The position is self-contradictory.	文化相對主義的基礎是一種信念，相信價值觀的變更。但是，如果「價值觀變更」這價值本身不會改變的話，則這理論就是主張有一個價值（亦即「所有價值觀會變更和進化」）是不變的，這說法是自相矛盾的。
Another important concern is conflict. If no absolute values exist trans-culturally or externally to the group, how are different cultures to get along when values collide? How are we to handle these conflicts?	另一個重要的問題是文化衝突。如果一個群體外沒有跨文化的絕對價值，當不同的文化的價值觀發生衝突時，又如何和平相處呢？我們該如何處理這些衝突呢？
Moreover, is there ever a place for courageous individuals to challenge the cultural norm and fight against social evil? Cultural relativism seems to leave no place for social reformers. The abolition movement, the suffrage movement, and the civil rights movement are all examples of social movements that ran counter to the social circumstances of the culture. Abolishing slavery and providing rights to citizens are good things even if many people within society oppose them.	此外，究竟有沒有勇敢的人會挑戰文化規範和對社會罪惡展開鬥爭呢？文化相對主義似乎沒有留位置給社會改革者。廢奴運動、投票權運動、民權運動都是抗拒當日文化社會環境的社會運動，即使社會上很多人反對，廢除奴隸制度和為公民提供民權總是好事。
The Bible provides a true standard by which to judge attitudes and actions. Christians can use biblical standards to judge individual sin as well as corporate sin institutionalized within a culture. By contrast, people cannot use culture to judge right and wrong because a changing culture cannot provide a fixed standard for morality. Only God’s character, revealed in the Bible, provides a reliable measure for morality.	聖經提供了一個真實的標準來判斷態度和行動。基督徒可以用聖經的標準來衡量一個文化內個人的罪惡以及群體的罪惡。相反地，人們不能用文化來判斷是非，因為一個不斷變更的文化不能提供一個固定的道德標準。只有聖經所啟示神的性格，才能為道德提供一個可靠的標準。

==============================

DOWNLOAD (MS-Word document)

SOURCE: Kerby Anderson (2005): Christian ethics in plain language (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson), 11-15 (excerpt from chapter 3).

Chapter 3. Secular ethical systems世俗倫理學系統