Final answer:
Javits Rosenthal's article challenges the cultural relativism aspect of Normative Ethical Relivism, proposing that some universal ethical principles may exist despite cultural differences, and that societal reforms indicate the presence of common ethical judgments.
Step-by-step explanation:
Javits Rosenthal's article could be read as an objection to cultural relativism, specifically to Normative Ethical Relativism. This theory posits that there are no universally valid moral principles and that right and wrong are determined solely by the cultural context. Rosenthal seems to challenge this view by highlighting instances where moral reforms have occurred within cultures, suggesting an underlying set of ethical principles that can overrule the predominant cultural view. Moreover, Rosenthal appears to argue against the notion that if morality is socially constructed, it then leads to subjectivism, where each individual's moral rules are equally valid, insinuating that this line of reasoning eliminates the possibility of objective moral judgments.
Normative Ethical Relativism fails to account for moral reforms initiated by minority groups within a culture and does not explain why people across different cultures might still share common ethical judgments against certain practices, such as infanticide or genital mutilation. This suggests that, contrary to what the theory of Normative Ethical Relativism proposes, there may be some moral principles that are universally acknowledged, despite cultural differences.