There are no moral facts, according to moral relativism. There are facts and opinions. Facts are things that can be proven or exist. Opinions are things that can't be proven or exist (things that you believe). The difference between fact and opinion is that facts can be verified while opinions cannot. For example, it's a fact that 2+2=4. This can be proven by showing that 4 numbers add up to 12; therefore, 2+2=4.
Moral judgments are opinions. We all have our own values and beliefs about what actions are right and wrong, but these opinions cannot be proven true or false. They are just opinions.
Moral relativists say that there are only views, without any fact behind them. You may think murder is wrong, but that doesn't make it so. It's just your view of what should be done with the body after death. Other people may feel differently about this subject. That's all there is to it - different opinions about what's right and wrong.
Some philosophers claim that there are moral facts. For example, they might say that a particular action is always wrong to kill another human being. However, most philosophical skeptics say that this cannot be proved because any argument could be used to justify killing someone.
Moral relativism concludes that there is no objective means to determine which morality is correct and that there is no reason to believe in a single real morality. This is consistent with the idea of some moral universals, just as certain linguistic universals appear to exist. Relativists may argue that since there is no way to objectively distinguish good and bad actions, it makes sense for individuals or groups to create their own standards by which they judge what behaviors are acceptable.
The main argument for moral relativism is based on its claim that there is no way to objectively distinguish good and bad actions. If this is true, then there is no way to tell which actions are correct and which ones are not. Thus, we should not try to do so because there is no way that we can succeed.
Some thinkers have used this argument to conclude that it is wrong always, everywhere, and for any given purpose that we might want to judge something as good or bad. Others have argued that if this argument is valid, then it follows that there is no way to tell whether global warming is good or bad, so we should don't try to do so.
The main argument against moral relativism is its failure to account for many cases where people clearly do make such distinctions. For example, most people agree that killing is wrong, even if they claim that there is no way to know this objectively.
What are moral relativists' perspectives on morality? Moral judgments may only be true or untrue from a certain point of view. There is a universal moral code that regulates everything. Morals are relative since they are all based on the same intellectual principles. This means that there is no such thing as absolute right and wrong because everyone has their own set of values that they use to make these judgments.
Moral relativism says that there is no such thing as objective truth and falsehood. Instead, there are only opinions held by individuals who define them as such. Truth is something that varies from person to person depending on what they choose to believe. There is no such thing as objective reality that can be seen by more than one person. All we have is our perception of the world which depends on our beliefs.
In other words, morals are subjective. They only seem that way because people are biased to think that certain actions are correct or incorrect. If another person came along with different values they might not judge the same things as you do. Even within groups of people, there can be conflict over issues such as religion or politics. These conflicts arise because people have different ideas about what should be done in situations such as these. Some will say that one group is wrong while others say that they are right.
Ethical relativism is the belief that morality is relative to one's culture's standards. That is, whether an activity is right or bad is determined by the moral standards of the community in which it is carried out. The identical conduct may be ethically correct in one community but not in another. Thus, ethics is a product of society and cannot be judged by society's standards.
According to this view, there are no objective standards by which we can judge right from wrong. Instead, what appears to be right for one person may be wrong for another. Both their judgments matter equally, regardless of their authority over us. This means that ethical standards are subjective and can never be known with certainty. They can only be believed to be true or false based on one's experience of how people have acted in different situations.
Relativism in ethics therefore implies that there are no objective standards for judging right from wrong. What appears to be right for one person may be wrong for another.
The most important implication of ethical relativism for contemporary debates about bioethics is that it calls into question the very idea of objective truth regarding values and principles.
The moral rightness and wrongness of behaviors vary from society to society, according to the normative ethical relativism hypothesis, and there are no absolute universal moral norms binding on all men at all times. According to the notion, all thinking about the fundamental principles of morality (ethics) is always relative. It depends on the particular culture or society that produces these concepts. There are no objective standards by which to judge any one society's morals as better or worse than others.
Moral relativism has been a popular idea in philosophy since the time of Socrates. In his day, people believed that what was true for Greeks was not true for Egyptians nor Carthaginians, and so on. Since then, many other philosophers have taken up the challenge of explaining how it can be that what's right for me may not be right for you. The most famous modern exponent of this view is John Stuart Mill. He argued that because each individual is free to define what is good for him or her, there are no fixed standards by which to judge any one society's morals as better or worse than others.
In fact, some philosophers believe that moral relativism is indispensable for human freedom and responsibility to make sense. If there are no objective standards of right and wrong, then we cannot be held responsible for our actions. We could not know what would count as a good action or bad action in a given situation.