This is a bad argument because of the word standard. The standard has two different meanings. The first sense, which is what is usual or customary, while the second sense is that against which things are measured. It is respectively about knowing what people think is right and what is actually right. This is a big difference between the two “standards”. In Benedict's argument, she does not realize that she is using two different methods, so her argument is false. A relativist would say, "Your culture says it's true, so it's true in their culture." » So an absolutist would say: “Your culture may say something is right, but it may be wrong. " Stace goes on to say: "And obviously one must conclude - although I do not know that relativists are concerned to draw attention to such unsavory yet absolutely necessary conclusions of their creed - that cannibalism is good for people who believe in, that human sacrifice is good for the races who practice it, and that burning widows alive was good for Hindus until the British intervened and forced Hindus to behave immorally by allowing for their widows to stay.