Who has the better argument out of Rachels and Benedict?

James Rachels critiques Ruth Benedict’s defense of relativism. He points out that the fundamental argument Benedict offers is invalid. The fact that people disagree about something does not prove that there is no truth of the matter. Similarly, Rachels argues that people across cultures do share some basic values. There is a good reason for this. If people did not have some values, they would never have a culture. The people within it would end up killing each other off. See the end of the article too. It is important not to confuse the lessons we can draw from the fact that people have disagreements with the truth of relativism.