relativism results in an uncritical acceptance of all moral beliefs as equally valid. Critics of ethical relativism point out that it is illogical to assume that because there is more than one answer to an ethical question that both answers are equally correct ─ or even that either answer is correct. They also maintain that there are more similarities than differences even among what seem to be very divergent societies. The late Philosopher James Rachels put the matter quite succinctly: The fact that different societies have different moral codes proves nothing. There is also disagreement from society to society about scientific matters: in some cultures it is believed that the earth is flat, and evil spirits cause disease. We do not on that account conclude that there is no truth in geography or in medicine. Instead, we conclude that in some cultures people are better informed than in others. Similarly, disagreement in ethics might signal nothing more than that some people are less enlightened than others. At the very least, the fact of disagreement does not, by itself, entail that truth does not exist. Why should we assume that, if ethical truth exists, everyone must know it? ' However, the most telling criticisms of the theory point out that it has incoherent consequences. For example, it becomes impossible to criticize a practice of another society as long as members of that society conform to their own standards. How could we maintain that Nazi Germany or pre-Civil War Virginia were wrong if we were consistent relativists? There must be criteria other than the society's own moral standards by which we can judge actions in any particular society. Though we should not dismiss the moral beliefs of other cultures, we likewise should not conclude that all systems of morality are equally acceptable. Finally, new technologies developed in the closing decades of the 20th century and the opening years of the 21st century are again transforming society and business and creating the potential for new ethical problems. They bring with them questions of risks, which may be unpredictable and/or irreversible. Who should decide whether the benefits of a particular technology are worth the risks? How will victims of bad technology be compensated for their loss? How will risk be distributed? How will privacy be maintained? How will property rights be protected?