Cultural relativism is an axiom used by some individuals to determine whether an act is morally wrong or right. It is considered a subspecies of the theory of moral relativism since it essentially follows the same path but only considers a narrower approach. Placing the Schafer-Landau Disagreement Argument in the context of cultural relativism appears to refute the theory, however I will demonstrate how it is flawed. The Schafer-Landau Disagreement Argument states:P1: If well-informed, open-minded people intractably disagree about some statement, then that statement cannot be objectively true. P2: Well-informed and open-minded people disagree wholeheartedly with all ethical statements. C: Therefore there are no objective moral truths. This is the fundamental claim of moral relativism. Cultural relativism is actually an application of this statement as it recognizes that individuals disagree about ethical claims, but aims to impose a "golden rule" for determining whether an act is morally wrong or right. To put the theory of cultural relativism into words: an act is morally right if and only if it is permitted 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 how to distinguish 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 believe an act is 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 Inuit of Alaska practiced senicide as part of their culture. When conditions were good... half of the paper... oral code. If you were in the shoes 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 this circumstance is morally wrong? If you were in the shoes of the younger 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. You might even have some tribe members show up instead of none. It all comes back to context. We can never look back at the past and deem an act morally wrong or right because, unless you were there, and we take into account all the intrinsic and extrinsic factors and context of each person, even if it may seem like there is a final solution, you just don't know all the circumstances. This follows the theory of moral relativism. Consequently, cultural relativism applies.