You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
It is a rather complex and, at times, risky endeavor to make moral judgments as to the acceptability of specific actions with regard to oneself and others. This is so because it involves a definition of morality based on principles not always clearly evidenced to the observers or equally acceptable to the participants. It has been suggested that this is more likely the case when participants and observers are of different ethnic and cultural backgrounds and when the cultural mores that dictate their behaviors are based on different conceptions of reality and relationships.
It is our contention that morality, although assumed to have universal values, is intimately influenced in its development by culture and ethnicity. This is quite understandable if we accept the notion that moral codes are developed in the context of our relationships to one another and in the context of our cultural surroundings. This is a notion widely accepted by philosophers, social scientists, and behavioral scientists interested in understanding human interaction. Indeed, according to these scholars, a full explanation of transactions among individuals needs to include an understanding of their level of moral development (Gilligan, 1982; Haan, 1975; Kant, 1959; Kohlberg, 1981; Piaget, 1965; Rest, 1973). In this context, morality can be defined with regard to its impact on behavior as a complex web of guidelines or a priori and a posteriori moral principles that permeate and influence all aspects of human existence and is expected to determine the outcome of any human transaction (Kant, 1959).