Rachels' situation seems that people in their search for answers to moral issues adopt the wrong approach. In particular, He strikes at those who believe in cultural relativism but refuse to grasp both its implications and shortcomings. Although he does not specifically mention this, in his writing, it is clear. He mostly aims to teach his audience, the people who read his work, about cultural relativism. He mustn't support cultural relativism as it's an attractive theory blindly. Instead, he needs people to ask every aspect of the idea to make sure it's sound and critical. He is motivated by a need to facilitate constructive discourse and whether or not it is as possible as it sounds. Rachels's key argument is that, while some concepts it is founded on are applicable, the principle of cultural relativism has significant defects. It is not as likely, in other words, as it sounds. The idea that various cultures have different moral codes is one of the main concepts of cultural relativism.
Moreover, in his essay, Rachels again discusses this idea and suggests that our cultures are not as distinct as they tend to be. He suggests that the shifts between the societies are overestimated and dramatized. The fact is that all societies have certain basic ideals essential to preserve humanity. According to Rachels, one of these ideals is to respect their infants and children very highly. These people cannot provide for themselves, and society will eventually perish without them. Another principle, which follows from the first, of cultural relativism is that we do not critically consider that any single society is superior to another society's moral code. This is what Rachels calls the case for cultural differences. He argues that, merely because individuals in diverse cultures disagree about morality, there is no "objective truth" in morality.