Ethics, Morality, and Cultural Judgment in the Shadow of Power

By Kiana Jimenez | Poetic Bipolar Mind

When scandal grips the world—when names like Jeffrey Epstein dominate the headlines and shake the public’s sense of decency—we are left not just with questions about the law, but with deeper moral inquiries: What is right? What is wrong? And who decides?

These questions aren’t easy to answer. They’re shaped by the lenses we wear—whether those lenses come from personal beliefs, cultural upbringing, or divine faith. In this post, I explore three ethical frameworks—ethical subjectivism, cultural relativism, and divine command theory—and how each would approach a situation like the one involving Epstein. Ultimately, I reflect on which perspective aligns most closely with my own.

🧠 Ethical Subjectivism: When Conscience Becomes Compass

An ethical subjectivist would approach the Epstein case not by seeking out objective rules or societal consensus, but by turning inward. For the subjectivist, morality is personal—a reflection of one’s internal values, experiences, and worldview.

They might ask: How do I, as an individual, feel about the harm caused? What do I believe was right or wrong based on my own understanding of justice, autonomy, and human dignity?

Subjectivism allows room for moral complexity. It acknowledges that not everyone sees the world the same way. But this freedom also carries a heavy burden: if all morality is subjective, then even actions that are universally condemned—like exploitation or abuse—might be judged differently by someone with different internal beliefs. That makes the framework powerful, but also ethically fragile.

Still, subjectivism does something critical: it puts the individual face-to-face with their conscience, asking not what others would do—but what you believe is worth defending.

🌐 Cultural Relativism: Morality Through the Lens of Context

A cultural relativist would respond to the Epstein situation by asking a different question: What was the cultural environment in which these actions took place—and how did it shape the behavior we’re judging?

Rather than assuming universal standards of right and wrong, the cultural relativist examines moral norms as products of cultural systems. They would investigate the social networks, norms, and power dynamics of the elite circles Epstein operated in. Was there a culture of silence? Was exploitation normalized in certain elite groups or industries? How did systemic forces allow such behavior to continue?

Cultural relativism doesn’t excuse wrongdoing—but it emphasizes understanding before judgment. It argues that to condemn someone’s actions without understanding the values and context that shaped them is to risk moral arrogance.

It’s a powerful reminder that our sense of “rightness” isn’t neutral—it’s inherited, shaped, and often limited by the place and time in which we live.

✝️ Divine Command Theory: Morality as Faithful Obedience

From the standpoint of divine command theory, morality is not subjective or cultural—it is sacred. Right and wrong are determined by the will of God, as revealed through religious texts, doctrines, or divine teachings.

A believer in this theory might say: If God commands something, it is good. If He forbids it, it is evil. Full stop.

In this framework, a person could view Epstein’s actions as evil not simply because society says so, but because they violate divine law—the commandments of a higher, perfect moral being.

Of course, divine command theory can be difficult in pluralistic societies. Different religions hold different moral codes, and some extremists might even argue (wrongly) that their actions are justified because “God told them so.” Still, for many, this theory provides a grounding—a compass not made by man, but by something more eternal.

🙏 How Religious Beliefs Shape Ethical Decision-Making

Religious beliefs often inform both ethics (the external) and morals (the internal). They provide frameworks, narratives, and rituals that define what is sacred, what is good, and what must be avoided.

In public discourse, religion can act as a moral anchor, reminding societies of the dignity of life, compassion, forgiveness, and justice. In private life, religious conviction may serve as the voice that speaks in the quiet moments when no one else is watching.

Religion can lead people to act courageously in defense of others—or, when misused, to justify harm. That’s why understanding the influence of faith on ethics is so vital in any serious conversation about morality.

💭 My Ethical Perspective: Rooted in Cultural Relativism

Of the three frameworks, cultural relativism most closely aligns with my ethical perspective. I believe that moral standards emerge from cultural context, and no single standard can claim universal dominance.

What is moral in one culture may be seen as immoral in another. This doesn’t mean “anything goes”—but it means we must seek to understand before we judge. It means we must listen to the stories behind the behavior, the systems that support it, and the unspoken rules that people are pressured to follow.

Our conscience, after all, is shaped by where we come from—our ancestors, our communities, and the stories we’ve been told since childhood. Cultural relativism reminds me to be humble, curious, and empathetic in the face of complex ethical challenges.

📚 Works Cited

Rachels, James, and Stuart Rachels. The Elements of Moral Philosophy. 9th ed., McGraw-Hill Education, 2019.

Boss, Judith A. Ethics for Life: A Text with Readings. 6th ed., Pearson, 2017.

Pojman, Louis P., and James Fieser. Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong. 9th ed., Cengage Learning, 2021.