Cultural relativism basically states that different cultures have different moral codes. The customs of different societies are all that exists, and it is not possible to impose an independent standard of right and wrong. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Anthropologist Ruth Benedict argues that studying the cultural practices of different groups of people supports what is and is not behaviorally normal is determined by the culture. He suggests that “is morally” and “is habitual” should be synonymous. In this theory he suggests that murder, homosexuality and other behaviors are perfectly acceptable when they fit the customs or morals of a particular culture. As a matter of fact, those who do not adhere to these behaviors may have betrayed their own culture and be considered abnormal, no matter how good they would be perceived in a contrasting culture. Philosophy professor, James Rachels, is critical of cultural behavior relativism. Rachels argues that there are good reasons to reject this moral theory. First, it states, in logical reasoning, that one culture can say that something is right, such as murder, while another culture says that murder is wrong. Logically, the conclusion is that murder is neither right nor wrong; it's a matter of opinion. This makes cultural relativism an unfounded premise. Furthermore, if we take cultural relativism seriously, we can no longer say that other societies' cultures are inferior to ours. Finally, we could consult the standards of our society to decide whether actions are right or wrong, and the idea of ​​moral progress would be called into question. My personal moral conviction must lean more towards that of Professor Rachel. If cultural beliefs were allowed to drive the entire moral code of the planet, we would find ourselves in enormous chaos. While minor things like shaving one's head or never cutting one's hair, or believing that it is okay to eat meat or living by the standard of never eating meat, would be mostly irrelevant to the human race as a whole, things like murder , slavery, rape, etc., could be devastating to society. If people were generally allowed to run amok driven by conflicting cultural beliefs, we would quickly self-exterminate. There must be some universal standards or rules that govern the main morals of every culture. Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom paper from our expert writers now. Get a custom essay Those major universal standards on topics such as murder, slavery, rape, lying, theft, etc. they should extend to all cultures, otherwise people would live isolated and in constant fear of others. They would constantly fear that coming into contact with another person would subject them to any number of what we consider crimes, with no punishment induced because there would be no way to tell that the person committed the crime because it was a normal part of their life. respective culture or not. A society without rules would not be a society.