Cultural relativism is the outlook that all ethical practices, traditions, and customs are relative to the individual within his own social context. It simply implies that there are no rights and wrongs because they vary from culture to culture. I choose to argue against the cultural relativist view on the grounds of Shaffer-Landau argument on the basis of Moral Infallibility. I shall first summarize Cultural relativism and shortly after describe what I take is the strongest argument against it to be. Then I will then formulate a response from the viewpoint of a cultural relativist, as I shall lastly argue against it. Paragraph 2 – Describe cultural relativism As I previously mentioned Cultural relativism claims that correct moral standards are relative to cultures, and societies. This ideology relies on the argument that there are no independent standards by which to judge “correct” or “incorrect” actions, since all standards are “culture-bound.” On the basis of my argument involving Moral Infallibility, in his argument Shafer-Lauder points out that if a social code can contain some serious moral errors, then cultural relativism would find itself vulnerable to the fact that it proclaims that society can say whatever is most dear to be morally right. …show more content…
Since indeed cultural relativism claims that there is no objective “truth” in morality, then there are no right or wrongs, since there are only matters of opinions that vary from culture to