Cultural relativism is an axiom that some individuals use to govern whether an act is morally wrong or right. It is considered a subspecies of the theory of moral relativism because it essentially follows the same path but simply considers a narrower approach. Placing Schafer-Landau's argument about disagreement in the context of cultural relativism seems to refute the theory, but I will demonstrate why it is wrong. Schafer-Landau's argument on disagreement states: P1: If well-informed and open-minded, people will intractably disagree about some statements. , then this statement cannot be objectively true. P2: Well-informed and open-minded people disagree intractably about all ethical statements. C: So there are no objective moral truths. This is the fundamental assertion of moral relativism. Cultural relativism is actually an application of this statement because it recognizes that individuals disagree on ethical assertions, but aims to impose a "golden rule" to determine whether an act is morally wrong or right. To put into words the theory of cultural relativism: an act is morally right if and only if it is authorized by the moral code of the society to which the agent belongs. Studies on cultural relativism and moral relativism are often confused and it is important to know the difference between the two. Relativism is a way of viewing an act as having no correct moral response. An individual's context (for convenience, this is Individual A), culture, and background can influence whether they consider an act to be morally right or wrong. This may differ from the perspective of another individual (B), who may have other moral beliefs that conflict with those of A. For example, the Alaskan Inuit practiced senicide as part of their culture. When conditions were difficult...... middle of paper...... oral code. If you were in the position of the elders of this society, you might want to become a moral reformer. The fact is; Who are we to say that killing in these circumstances is morally wrong? If you were in the position of the youngest members of the Inuit tribe and the only way to survive and get to a safe haven was to kill your elders, you might think differently. Might as well make sure that some members of the tribe go there rather than none. It all comes down to context. We can never look back and consider an act morally wrong or right, because unless you are present there, and take into account all the intrinsic and extrinsic factors and context of each person, even though it may seem that there is a definitive solution, you simply don't know all the circumstances. This follows the theory of moral relativism. Consequently, cultural relativism holds.