Final answer:
King's proposal rejects cultural relativism because he believes in universal moral principles that transcend cultural norms and provide a foundation for moral critique and reform irrespective of majority views within a culture.
Step-by-step explanation:
King's proposal is seen as a rejection of cultural relativism primarily because he posits the existence of universal moral principles such as a moral law or "law of God" that apply to individuals beyond the confines of their particular cultures. This stands in contrast to the core tenet of cultural relativism which states that moral rightness and wrongness of actions are culturally based and that no single set of moral standards holds true for all people at all times. King’s perspective suggests that some moral truths are so fundamental that they transcend societal and cultural differences.
Option 1) is correct because King assumes universal moral principles, which contradict the idea that morality is simply a function of cultural norms as suggested by cultural relativism. Instead, King aligns more with moral absolutism or universalism, which proposes that there are certain objective moral principles that are universally binding. This notion of a universal standard can be seen as a foundation for criticism of unjust laws and can help explain why minorities sometimes challenge and seek to reform the predominant moral views within their societies.
Normative Ethical Relativism, which posits that there are no universal moral truths, fails to account for the commonalities across cultures, such as the basic acknowledgment that unjust killing is wrong, despite different ideas about what justifies taking a life. King's argument for universal moral principles extends the discussion beyond relativism, suggesting a moral framework that both captures the shared moral intuitions amongst different cultures and provides a basis for moral critique and reform.