Cultural relativists argue that moral standards exist only within specific societies; that there are no objective, culturally independent standards of morality. Many people reject this position because it entails strongly counter-intuitive consequences. One of those counter-intuitive consequences of relativism is the claim that it isn't really immoral for other cultures to adopt practices we find reprehensible (like slavery or the subjugation of women), since there is no objective basis by which we can judge other cultures. But the relativist has a response to the counter-intuitive consequence of their theory. When someone insists that it is obvious that other cultures are wrong to adopt practices that our own culture claims is immoral, the relativist can simply say, "Of course these practices of other cultures strike you as immoral; that is just because they go against your own cultural bias. Things that one society rejects will always strike members of that society as immoral. Notice that there are many practices accepted by our own culture that members of other cultures find abhorrent. It simply doesn't follow that something practiced by one culture really is immoral just because members of a different culture think it is bad. All you are doing is expressing your own cultural prejudice." After spelling all of this out a little more, adopt and promote one side of this debate. Either extend and develop further this relativist response, or show how this relativist response can be answered.