The Inuit tribes’ action of killing infants might seem like a cultural relativistic action. After all, you might claim that it is morally right for them to do it, and morally wrong for us (Western cultures) to do it. However, the argument is more subtle and is in reality a form of moral objectivism. The primary reason is because the Inuit tribes are choosing between an existential problem or infanticide. If they do not kill an infant, then possibly everyone else can be in danger. Then the question is not really about in which cultures is infanticide acceptable, but under what circumstances is it morally acceptable? For the Inuits, certainly jeopardising the whole community is wrong. They probably have a utilitarian outlook on morality. Similarly, is killing innocent people in war morally permissible? Certainly the Hiroshima nuclear bombing is an example of how circumstances can shatter the supposed western value of not causing harm to innocents. However, the underlying intention/reasoning for both groups is clear. Both the Inuit tribes and the US chose the preservation of one’s own community before the killing of the innocent. Even if both cases can be agued to be not exactly equal, the underlying issue is similar. For this reason, this is not simply a cultural relativistic issue, but an objective or utilitarian morality issue.