Hello, I need a short writting for answering this discussion. No copy or any plagiarism please. Follow the details carefully.

It should be done in 2 hours

Westermarck bases many of his conclusions about cultural relativism on early 20th-century work in anthopology that had made contact with some distant cultures for the very first time. Avoiding the "cultural imperialist" view that was so predominant at the time, Westermarck seems to have shifted all the way to the other extreme--the moral perspectives of the people in a culture are merely a product of that culture. "Right" and "wrong," "good" and "bad" will be defined only in terms of what a culture educates its young to believe in these respects. Some cultural values may be incommensurable--that is, cannot be weighed or even compared against each other.

But is relativism a sound position? Consider the case of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM), a practice that, while largely restricted to African countries with large Muslim populations, affects millions of women through the deliberate mutilation or removal of the clitoris. The operation, typically performed under unsanitary conditions and with no follow-up, not only can lead to infections that could result in death, but also leaves these women completely unable to experience sexual pleasure for the rest of their lives.If we reject FGM out of hand, somebody like Westermarck will simply reply, "You're not expressing objective moral values that apply to all of us, you're simply reflecting your society's attitude toward practices like FGM."

How could you reply to Westermarck in a way that might sound reasonable to anyone? What, to be more precise, is valuable that is threatened by FGM or what is harmed by it that is so valuable? Remember, you are trying to make a "universal" case that could appeal to anyone.

Thank you.