After reading the two articles, we can see that Rachels and Benedict both are trying to show us good points about relative morality but I think Rachels has a better and stronger argument. Benedict proposes that there is relativism in morality, every culture and society has their own point of view and different approach, there are things that are normal in some cultures but it may not be in others and we individual are molded by our society and environment as the places we are brought up. In the part "Different cultures have different moral codes" of Rachels, he refers Darius thinks that "a sophisticated understanding of the world must include an appreciation of such differences between cultures". Each society, each nation has their own though
