my theory

In my readings of cultural relativism, I have felt that the arguments in favor of it are not as compelling as those against it. I think if you take a closer look at the belief/knowledge distinction, you will come to a similar conclusion.

Most amazing jew boots

Ethics and epistemology were not branches of philosophy that I focused my studies on, so what I relay to you may be a bit simplified. Cultural Relativism (also called Moral Relativism) is a meta-ethical theory which denies the universal truth of moral claims. The formulation of a general argument supporting Cultural Relativism that I am familiar with goes thusly:

(1) Different cultures have different moral codes.
(2) Therefore, there is no objective "truth" in morality. Right and wrong are only matters of opinion, and opinions vary from culture to culture.

This is not a sound argument as it is invalid (meaning that the conclusion does not logically follow from the premise(s)). The premise deals with what people believe while the conclusion deals with what really is the case. While this does not prove the conclusion to be false, a proponent of Cultural Relativism has not proven it to be true.

When dealing with any theory, one must also consider the framework with which it must mesh. The outlining of this ethical theory also raises epistemological concerns. A claim of belief (or the majority's claims of belief) is being equated to a claim of knowledge.

Why is it that 'I believe that P', where P is any proposition, is not equal to 'I know that P'? One can claim belief in P whether P is true or false. One cannot claim knowledge of P unless P is true. In the case where the majority of a culture/society believes that P, they are not entitled to make a claim of knowledge regarding P no matter how many people are on their side.

There's nowhere I can't reach.