Culture Quote of the Day - the basis for ethical choices

“The third assumption of this model [the “Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity”] is that ethical choices can and must be made for intercultural sensitivity to develop. However, these choices cannot be based on either absolute or universal principles. Rather, ethical behavior must be chosen with awareness that different viable actions are possible.”

Milton Bennett, “Towards Ethnorelativism”

So how does this fit with Bennett’s idea of developing a “meta-ethic” (based on “life itself”)? Isn’t he saying, here, that ethics are only and totally rooted in a sociocultural context?

How do I as a person of faith in God, respond to this statement?

To a certain extent, I agree with Bennett. I think he’s probably right that if you take a wide spectrum of people, from different cultural backgrounds, you will not be able to reach agreement on “universal” ethical principles. One dividing line is that between people who believe in God and those who don’t. Those who don’t, admit that they have no “absolute” or outside-a-human-context basis for ethical values, whereas those who do, believe that there are ethical values rooted in the existence and nature of God. (I think that among people who do believe in God, it may be possible to come to some agreement on “universal” ethical principles.) To talk about ethical choices, among people who are from different backgrounds, we must take into account the fact that we will have different perspectives based on our different backgrounds.

On the other hand, I believe that a person can be ethnorelative / interculturally sensitive, and believe in ethical values that are rooted outside of human culture, e.g., in the existence and nature of God. Jesus, for example, taught that the guiding principle of life is love – love of God and love of neighbor. If God exists, and if Jesus came from God, that would be an “absolute” or “universal” principle, whether people recognized it as such or not (though how it is worked out, would depend on the context, and would be shaped by worldview, culture, etc.).

In other words, I don’t believe it is an either/or choice – either you accept cultural difference, an ethnorelative perspective, and Bennett’s model of intercultural sensitivity, or you believe that ethical values and choices can be rooted in absolute principles. For Bennett to insist on this choice, is to extend his model beyond its limits (and he himself points out, at the end of the article, that there is growth beyond the model, and that the model itself is only one more construction of reality).

Culture Quote of the Day - towards a "meta-ethic"

"And if there is ever to be a 'meta-ethic' (Barnlund 1979) that can restrain the worst excesses of cultural value conflict and guide respectful dialogue, it must come from those whose allegiance is only to life itself."

Milton Bennett, "Towards Ethnorelativism"

For the most part, I like Bennett's model, and think it is full of insight into the process of experiencing cultural difference. At some points, though, I find his worldview falling short. Like in this quote. Bennett is limited by his apparently "secular" worldview, seeing nothing beyond the human, the cultural, dimension.

Developing a "meta-ethic" (i.e., one relevant to people of different cultures) by having an allegiance "only to life itself"? What does this mean? I don't think Bennett knows. This sounds nice, but it seems empty (to me).

To develop a "meta-ethic," applicable across cultures, we're talking about having an ethical framework that people of different cultures can agree to. This means finding something shared, "universal." 

I would find this "meta-ethic" rooted in Jesus. Jesus, in fact, presented himself as "life itself" ("I am the bread of life"; "I am the resurrection and the life"; "I have come that you may have life"; "the person who has the Son, has life"). 

Could Jesus be the source of the "meta-ethic" Bennett refers to? Not the "Christian" Jesus or the "Muslim" Jesus (and are there others?), but the Jesus of history, of the New Testament?

I have found that Muslims and Buddhists and unchurched people, and others (and E. Stanley Jones would say, Indian Hindus), are interested in, fascinated by, the person, life, teachings of Jesus - as long as they can meet him unencumbered by a particular group's way of "packaging" him. Jesus, as a historical figure, you could say, a historical reality, is not a product of human culture (though our images, our "packaging" of him, is, to one degree or another). And if Jesus is who the New Testament presents him as, and who Christians through the past 2000 years have understood he is, the Incarnate Word of God, one with the Father, the source of life, then he certainly exists outside of (as well as within) human sociocultural contexts.

Can we construct a "meta-ethic" that peoples of different cultures agree to? I don't know, the challenge seems daunting. But in my mind (and experience), we'd have a better chance starting with Jesus, than starting in a secular vacuum.