• Ethical Training Home
• Ethics: What and Why
• Theories of Ethics
  • Dallas for Council
  • Your view
  • Good for all
  • Sitting Bull Ethics
  • Whose Ethics?
  • Applied Ethics
  • Learn More Links
• Ethics in Indian Country
• Traditional Ethics
• Modern Indian Ethics
• SLC Research
• Myths of Ethical Change
• Moral Collapse
• The By-Stander
• Emotional Intelligence
• Joe Tribal Worker
• Susie Sainte
• Positive Ethics
• Action Plans

Sitting Bull, Custer and Relativism

Individual relativism is antithetical to (opposes) traditional Dakota values. This is the theory that what is right and wrong is relative to the individual.

Let’s take a look at the leadership styles of Sitting Bull and Custer. They had totally opposite ways of looking at things:

"Sitting Bull: He lived among his people claiming no special privileges. He ate what they ate, slept where they slept, traveled among them, and shared the responsibilities of daily life. ....
Custer: He remained aloof from his people. He treated them with the same contempt he treated his enemies. Custer rode the best horses, ate the best food, and slept apart from his men. He did not know them." --- (Murphy & Snell, 1993)

Custer believed what was right depended on the individual. He was the general and therefore it was right that he should be comfortable, have the best of everything. There are plenty of managers today who take this viewpoint, who fly first class while there is "not enough money" to give raises to the lowest paid employees in their organization.

Social or cultural ethical relativism is the theory that right and wrong are whatever each society or culture says or believes is right and wrong.

Cultural relativism is the view that ethics are relative to the culture. For example, in some countries it is believed that women should not be educated, because their whole role is to serve men and mother children. Dr. De Mars personally believes this is WRONG. Does she have the right to force the natives of those countries to conform to her beliefs? Do they have the right, should she visit their country, to force her to comply with their laws? What if they were to conquer the United States? Would they then have the right to keep American women from getting an education, from driving a car, from being out in public without a male chaperone?