Just a few comments/questions on cultural relativism. If I'm correct, the concept of cultural relativism asserts that since each culture has its own values and practices, anthropologists should not make value judgments about cultural differences. Therefore, because the study of customs and norms should be value-free, the appropriate role of the anthropologist is that of observer and recorder. Of course this view isn't free of critics. The most interesting debate on cultural relativism (at least to me) can be found in the field of Human Rights. Many questions come to mind: Can universal human rights really exist in a culturally diverse world? As the international community becomes increasingly integrated, can cultural diversity thrive and survive? And more importantly, in anthropology, can the concept of cultural relativism coexist with the notion of universal human rights? If yes how so? Undoubtedly, cases of genocide allow the clearest insight into where the line between local culture and universal morality lies. But other practices that harm individuals or categories of people (such as female circumcision) present harder questions about the morality of traditional practices. When there is a choice between defending human rights and defending cultural relativism, should anthropologists choose to protect and promote human rights? And finally how can anthropologists promote human rights without imposing, for example, their Western views of universal rights?