It is tempting to think that the first person polled would try to make an inference from what his culture believes about other, similar issues. But strictly speaking, there need be no connection whatsoever. When it is pointed out that foreigners are every bit as capable of autonomy as are citizens, the CERist need only reply that no one there believes that foreigners' autonomy rules out their being owned as slaves. Of course, one of the most popular ways to embrace objectivity in ethics is by embracing theological ethics and tying morality to God's will, but as we shall see , that view has its own problems. Rachels notes that one of the best known ethical theories, utilitarianism, might imply both that pre-contact Eskimoes were right to kill female babies and leave the elderly to die from exposure and that it would be wrong to do those same things in modern North America.
Utilitarianism is the view that right actions and institutions maximize aggregate happiness.
So under different circumstances, a utilitarian would infer that very different policies were justified. And a utilitarian could consistently conclude that under the extreme conditions pre-contact Eskimoes lived in, the above practices are right whereas the same practices are wrong under contemporary conditions. Rachels concludes his essay by noting two related lessons he thinks we can learn from ethical relativism. There are many . . . Realizing that some deeply held beliefs have no rational justification and are merely matters of etiquette can help us keep a cool head when other deeply held beliefs are challenged by rational arguments.