Comparing Writings of James Rachels, William Sumner, Ruth Benedict

After reading the writings of James Rachels, William Sumner, and Ruth Benedict I will have to say that I agree with Mr Rachel's. I do not agree with moral relativity, and this brought into focus many areas of which I do agree. Though different cultures have different moral codes, James draws out the point that they may not be right. His example of the Eskimo, states their society says that it is ok to kill their children; while we, on the other hand, find it offensive. I also agree with his second argument that cultural relativism hinders growth - it does not help. To say that there are no universals undermines and negates right and wrong. Where can one find a moral compass, a moral North Star that will direct one in a safe place? If there is no standard for morality then why do we take up arms against the Hitlers of the day who kill millions, or judge the pedophile who perpetrates his warped desires on helpless children. "They should not be judged," says the moral cultural relativist, "It's just the culture of the day, thus making it morally okay."

The consequences of taking culture relativism seriously is another area that I feel he carried a strong argument. If we stand on the argument of Benedict and Sumner then