that there is no universal moral truth, that each culture has it"s own set of rules that are valid for that culture, and we have no right to interfere, just as they have no right to interfere with our rules."(p. 89) The best example from the book is that of the Northwest Coast American Indians. They thought that they needed to retaliate after all deaths, no matter what the cause. The book describes how one tribe gathered a war party that killed seven people in their sleep after the chief"s sister and daughter drowned.(p. 93) .

             As a rule I feel that the theory of ethical relativism is absurd. The example from the book shows an argument one could make against it. Not interfering with the ways of another culture is fine, but what happens when their actions directly affect you? For instance, say you are a traveler in the area of these tribes and they kill you in your sleep. That is not fair to you. They have no right to take your life in your own culture but to them it is a custom. .

             Another problem is that you can"t learn from other cultures. If we don"t objectively look at the rules and regulations of other cultures, we loose the advantage of not being the guinea pig in life. For instance, if another culture tries a new style of government and it fails miserably, we should be able to take that into consideration. We need to decide what is wrong and what is right and why we feel this way about these issues. .

             One example from the news is the treatment of a young boy in the United States by his father who is from the Middle East. The father hit his son as an act of discipline and was brought to court for it. The judge in the case found him not guilty because in his culture it is normal to hit in order to discipline a child. I disagree with this ruling. It is illegal to strike a child in the US so why is it different for an immigrant from a different culture? What if it is customary for his culture to tie his children up and leave them in the basement until they stopped crying? What would the courts say to that? If you stick to ethical relativism then the courts would have no say, but how could that be fair to the children in this case.