• You have rejected a claim made by some of the older anthropologists; namely, that we can deduce a rule of tolerance or non-interference from the theory of cultural relativism.
• You have mentioned several concerns that should be considered before interfering with people who accept different moral principles: the very fact that they attach moral weight to what you wish to interfere with, the type of interference, and the fundamentality or gravity of the principle being violated.
• Ann has made the point that putting our questions in terms of cultures may not be necessary. It may even be misleading. She seems to feel, and I agree for the most part, that all of the problems we have discussed can arise within a culture whenever two people or two groups accept different moral principles.

Now let's move on and consider the alleged implications that Ann mentioned. Remember she listed the following problems:

• Ethical relativism implies that there are really no solid foundations for ethics. As a result, there is no such thing as moral knowledge.
• Ethical relativism implies that 'anything goes' in ethics.
• Ethical relativism implies that there are no rational methods for settling disputes in ethics.

I think these claims capture what many people fear about ethical relativism. What are your thoughts about these issues?