This article deals with the central theme of moral (cultural) relativism. It is essentially the idea that morally acceptable conduct is determined and established by culture. The key factor is that the moral codes of one culture are usually different than those of another. This is constantly highlighted through the traditions of the Greeks and Callatae when it comes to death. Another example concerns the Eskimos and their belief in infanticide. The topic of cultural differences is then examined and applied to some examples. This is not a valid argument because there is a logical flaw that can be exploited. The logical flaw in the argument shows that moral relativism is false. By examining certain views and judgments, moral relativism can be invalidated. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay The main idea of ​​moral (cultural) relativism is that morality is shaped by culture and that there is no universal truth in ethics. (Rachels p.21). Moral relativism holds that actions are determined to be right or wrong based on a particular cultural code. Added to this is the fact that numerous cultural codes exist and consequently morality varies in every society. Moral relativism holds that no moral code is superior to another. Basically, moral relativism explains that we should not judge a culture based on our standards of what is right or wrong, rather we should try to understand the practices of other cultures and respect them. Moral judgments that are true in one culture may be false in another. Therefore, it is impossible for all cultures to agree on a certain action or topic and as such there is no universal truth across all cultures. Throughout the text, Rachels illustrates various differences between cultures that support the idea of ​​moral relativism. The first cultural difference Rachels mentions occurs between the Greeks and the Callatae. It was about how the two cultures treated the bodies of their dead fathers. For the Callati it was customary to eat the body of the dead father. Cremation was practiced for the Greeks. King Darius, who was the king of Persia, asked the Greeks if they would eat their dead father and asked the Callatians if they would burn the body. Both the Greeks and Callatians were shocked and horrified. It was impossible for them to imagine. (Rachels p.22) The Greeks thought it was wrong to eat the dead while the Callatians believed it was right. This can support moral relativism because both cultures have different opinions. Another example that Rachels introduces in the text is the culture of the Eskimos. Eskimo men had multiple wives and shared wives with guests. Males had access to other men's wives. Aside from marital practices, infanticide was common. They would kill infants and elderly people who could no longer contribute to the family (Rachels p. 23). Girls tended to be killed more often than boys. Comparing Eskimo culture to American culture, Americans believed infanticide was wrong while Eskimos thought it was right. Both the arguments about corpse-eating and infanticide show that the customs and traditions of one culture are different from those of another. Moral relativism can lead us to believe that right or wrong simply depends on an opinion (Rachels p 24). Rachels explains that the argument from cultural differences can be used to analyze the concept of moral relativism. This argument can be used to examine the differences between cultures and lead to a definitive conclusion about moralitywithin that culture. The argument of cultural differences stems from the fact that different cultures believe in a set of moral codes that vary from another culture (Rachels p. 23). Consequently, objective truth in morality is impossible. Actions or beliefs considered morally right or wrong are simply an opinion that varies from one culture to another. This is what Rachels considers the form of an argument. The reasoning Rachels uses as an example is that cannibalism is not right or wrong, it is an opinion that varies depending on culture (Rachels p. 23). The same logic can be applied in the case of the Eskimos. They believed infanticide was right while Americans believed it was wrong. Views on infanticide differ among other cultures. The argument from cultural differences can lead to the conclusion that there are no universal moral truths or accepted standards. The only right or morally correct standard is that relating to one's own culture. Rachels criticizes the cultural differences argument because it has a serious logical flaw. The problem is that the conclusion, even if it were true, does not follow from the premise (Rachels p. 24). It turns out that the premise is what people in various societies believe and the conclusion is what it really is. In other words, the cultural differences argument is invalid based on the well-established proposition that since there is no objective truth, it does not follow that there is disagreement about the actual truth of a certain matter. The main problem with the cultural differences argument is that it leads us to a conclusion based solely on the fact that a disagreement exists (Rachels p. 25). If different cultures have a different view on a certain issue, there is no right or wrong answer on that particular issue. The fact that some societies disagree on a topic does not prove that there is no universally accepted objective truth. A supporting argument would be needed to determine whether the conclusion is actually true. This flaw can be illustrated using the belief that some societies think the Earth is flat while others believe it is spherical. If two societies disagree about the shape of the Earth, this does not mean that there is no subjective truth in geography (Rachels p.24). Occasionally, some companies may be wrong. This example used by Rachels implies that belief about the shape of the Earth is an opinion that varies between different cultures. The fact of disagreement does not prove that there is no objective truth in morality as a whole. The conclusion of subjectivity in geography does not follow the premise because the world is round. Just because we think the world is round, doesn't mean everyone knows it (Rachels p.24). The cultural differences argument invalidates moral relativism due to the logical flaw. This can be seen in a variety of scenarios. If moral relativism were true, some inferences could be drawn. Rachels explains that we should stop condemning other societies because they are different. In turn, this would stop criticism of certain practices such as slavery and anti-Semitism (Rachels p.25). Moral relativism would consider these practices morally right when they are clearly wrong. According to moral relativism, social injustices such as slavery and anti-Semitism would be considered “right” because that is what society says. Secondly, the only way to determine what is right or wrong would be to ask within our society. This will prevent us from criticizing our own social code (Rachels p.25). Furthermore, if cultural relativism were true, moral progress would not exist (Rachels p.26). In the course of.