Explain why the cultural differences argument is not sound? Solution Because of Cultural Relativism. ================================================= To numerous scholars, this observation. \"Different societies have distinctive good codes, has appeared to be the way to comprehension profound quality. The possibility of generally accepted fact in morals, they say, is a myth. The traditions of various social orders are all that exist. These traditions can\'t be said to be \"right\" or \"inaccurate,\" for that infers we have an autonomous standard of good and bad by which they might be judged. Yet, there is no such free standard; each standard is culture-bound. The colossal spearheading humanist William Graham Sumner, writing in 1906, put the point this way: The \"right\" way is the way which the precursors utilized and which has been passed on. The custom is its own warrant. It is not held subject to check by involvement. The idea of right is in the folkways. It is not outside of them, of autonomous root, and conveyed to test them. In the folkways, whatever is, is correct. This is on the grounds that they are conventional, and accordingly contain in themselves the specialist of the tribal apparitions. When we go to the folkways we are toward the finish of our investigation. This line of thought has most likely induced a bigger number of individuals to be suspicious about morals than some other single thing. Social Relativism, as it has been called, challenges our conventional faith in the objectivity and all inclusiveness of good truth. It says, as a result, that there is not such thing as generally accepted fact in morals; there are just the different social codes, and nothing more. Besides, our own code has no uncommon status; it is only one among numerous..

1. Explain why the cultural differences argument is not sound?
Solution
Because of Cultural Relativism.
=================================================
To numerous scholars, this observation.
"Different societies have distinctive good codes,
has appeared to be the way to comprehension profound quality. The possibility of generally
accepted fact in morals, they say, is a myth. The traditions of various social orders are all that
exist. These traditions can't be said to be "right" or "inaccurate," for that infers we have an
autonomous standard of good and bad by which they might be judged. Yet, there is no such free
standard; each standard is culture-bound. The colossal spearheading humanist William Graham
Sumner, writing in 1906, put the point this way:
The "right" way is the way which the precursors utilized and which has been passed on. The
custom is its own warrant. It is not held subject to check by involvement. The idea of right is in
the folkways. It is not outside of them, of autonomous root, and conveyed to test them. In the
folkways, whatever is, is correct. This is on the grounds that they are conventional, and
accordingly contain in themselves the specialist of the tribal apparitions. When we go to the
folkways we are toward the finish of our investigation.
This line of thought has most likely induced a bigger number of individuals to be suspicious
about morals than some other single thing. Social Relativism, as it has been called, challenges
our conventional faith in the objectivity and all inclusiveness of good truth. It says, as a result,
that there is not such thing as generally accepted fact in morals; there are just the different social
codes, and nothing more. Besides, our own code has no uncommon status; it is only one among
numerous.