Rachels principle guarantee is that the hypothesis of social relativism has genuine shortages, though a portion of the premises it depends on are substantial. In Rachels word, it is “not [as] plausible as it appears to be.”(57) One of the primary premises that social relativism remains on is that “different cultures have different moral codes.”(54) Rachels demonstrates this is valid by utilizing a few cases of social practices that vary considerably from our own, remembering marriage for Eskimo people group. Eskimos accept that spouses can have various wives, and that ladies are permitted to break the marriage game plan whenever and locate another accomplice. This exactly what is happening with the Bajesan, because every culture has a different moral code. It shows that nation card people don’t like any outside to get in their culture there are multiple reason why this happens maybe they don’t want to share their space, or it doesn’t fit in their culture. This goes back to what Rachel said that our religion and culture are not so extraordinary as they seem, by all accounts, to be. He contends that we overestimate and dramatize the varieties among cultures. Actually, all cultures share some basic beliefs for all intents and purpose that are important to support human progress. One of these qualities, as indicated by Rachels, is to put high an incentive on their kids and newborn children. It is unthinkable for these people to think about themselves, and without them society would in the end cease to exist.
While looking at the case it states that nation card is banning Bajesans, the only reason why they are banning them is because Bajesans are outsiders and they have different religion, so they are wrong, that’s all because of Social relativism. Social relativism, which follows from the first, is that we can’t unbiasedly pass judgment on any one society’s ethical code to be better than the ethical code of another general public. Rachels state this as “Cultural Difference Argument.”(58) He asserts that it is absurd to presume that there is no ‘goal truth’ in profound quality essentially in light of the fact that individuals in various social orders differ on what is good. It is completely conceivable that the gatherings being referred to are just mixed up, in any case. The issue with the Social Differences Argument is that the end doesn’t follow from the reason. Rachels’ investigation of the results of the acknowledgment of social relativism offers more help for his case that the hypothesis is imperfect. He expresses that, as a matter of first importance, we could never again contend that our traditions are ethically better than those of different societies. We would need to acknowledge that different social orders are ‘different’ (59) and that these distinctions don’t make them substandard. Another outcome would be that we could look to the benchmarks of our general public to decide if our activities are correct or wrong. This is hazardous in light of the fact that we might be under the feeling that specific parts of our general public’s ethical code are imperfect at the same time, as indicated by social relativism, we can’t scrutinize them. The third and last outcome of tolerating social relativism is that ‘moral progress’ is faulty (60). At the end of the day, social change could occur just in an exceptionally constrained limit. The model Rachels gives is that ladies held a choked job in Western culture for the vast majority of history, and as of late were freed from that position. Be that as it may, social relativism would not permit us to consider this ‘progress’ at all since we can’t decide whether any better approach for showing improvement over the old method for getting things done.
When we look at the case and the letter that was written by Martin Luther king, they are fairly similar. The letter particularly attempts to be centered around the topics identified with the isolation of the Afro-American populace taking basic focuses, for example, the periods of the not rough activity, the need of the tranquil incitement, the reaction to the allegations of radicalism, the Church’s disposition toward social shameful acts. This goes hand in hand with the “outsiders” because Afro-American was looked down, they were treated wrong just like nation of Card is doing with Bajes. Martin Luther King utilized Jr. writing loaded with rationale and amazingly ground-breaking guides to pass on a fundamental message that foul play will fail if the individuals who battle for equity are eager to languish over safeguarding it. He sets a model that equity is just to assist a few, and when it comes over a minority individual there is no equity. Their contentions are at a similar scholastic level, social and strict that most of their adversaries. It is because of the low or zero reaction from the specialists and the network all in all that the Civil Rights Movement chooses to dispatch a crusade of direct activity, which it depended on executing various types of serene exhibition, for example, monetary blacklist, and demonstrations in those foundations in which segregationist activities were held against the Afro-American. These types of articulation planned to make a condition of strain without resort to brutality. For Martin Luther King, the arrangement is certainly the key idea of serene common obstruction and to arrive at this spot, it is fundamental if all else fails the immediate activity. In Birmingham, the monetary blacklist against brokers reacted to the utilization of the last plan of action utilized by Martin Luther King to battle against racial signs that were shown by the white network in their foundations. In spite of isolation was denied the truth under the represents African Americans was totally different. This sort of social separation was totally disguised in the white network; showed in every conceivable structure and types inside the day by day lives of Americans’ southern towns.