I believe this example has hints of cultural relativism, as we are examining the moral correctness of actions in differing cultures. However, cultural relativism solely focuses on the lack of objectivity and universality of moral truths. This example not only stresses said core principles of cultural relativism, but also further emphasizes the dire consequences that the Inuit tribes would face if they did not practice infanticide. Therefore, I believe that – although this example examines the diverging morality of different cultures – the text instead compels us to focus on the diminishing overall well-being of the tribe members if they did not practice infanticide. Ultimately, I think this text is an example of utilitarianism: a form of consequentialism which asserts that actions are morally correct if they produce the greatest overall balance of happiness over misery. Indeed, for the Inuit tribes, practicing infanticide creates the greatest net balance of happiness over unhappiness; if they do not kill some of their babies, the members will face severe adversity, such as “famine, illness, social instability, and general suffering for all”. Utilitarianism therefore makes their actions morally acceptable.