ld agree, but in how Rachels applies it, it doesn’t make sense. He is comparing and trying to relate two things so dissimilar that it boggles the mind to think of comparing them in the first place. To begin with, Rachels seems to be implying that since, one is obviously wrong and that we have factual evidence to the contrary, that is what makes them wrong. That works, but when it’s applied to something like morality and ethics like he is trying to do, it makes no sense. Since when and where has there ever been a fact based moral code? Who says morally what is correct and what is not within society or for that matter for the good of humankind? Reading further, he states that the whole point is that the original conclusion does not follow from the premise laid forth by the cultural relativists. This is true based on what he gives in the second example, but his example is construed in order to get such results. Next Rachels goes on to further try and prove cultural relativism has some problems. In the next section, he evaluates the seriousness of the cultural relativist and what that exactly entails. Looking at the consequences, he says that we, as cultural relativists, would have to condone the actions of another culture as not being less inferior. There is no problem there. Where the problem begins is when he brings up slavery and genocide, things that are considered immoral to our society in particular. On a personal note, I do not wish to downplay any of these things in our history, I am looking at this through my point of view and that is all. Genocide and slavery are pretty immoral to me personally, but if condoning it means that we wouldn’t push our own beliefs on another then so be It. It’s evil but a necessary means. This example he gives is an extreme, brought on by events in the world’s past history, again Rachels uses those constructions of our own moral code to judge that to do suc...
