DESCRIPTION OF INTERACTIVE
The view that moral or ethical systems, which vary from culture to culture, are all equally valid and no one system is really “better” than any other. This is based on the idea that there is no ultimate standard of good or evil, so every judgment about right and wrong is a product of society.
If we hold to strict cultural relativism, it becomes literally impossible to argue that anything a culture does is right or wrong. In the spirit of “tolerance,” we lose the ability to make any judgments at all.
The view that morality is relative to the norms of one's culture. That is, whether an action is right or wrong depends on the moral norms of the society in which it is practiced. Whatever a group that shares a common culture perceives to be right, is right.
Differences in moral practices across cultures may lead us to question whether there are any universal moral principles or whether morality is merely a matter of "cultural taste." This also means that there can be no common framework for resolving moral disputes or for reaching agreement on ethical matters among members of different societies.
The view that people in different societies have very different beliefs and systems of belief.
Philosophers speak of something called, ‘locating a modus vivendi’, which is a Latin expression meaning, ‘a way of life that will allow all of us to exist together.’ We live in increasingly fractured societies. Whether those differences are economic, cultural or ideological, if we can’t form a modus vivendi, are we destined to be in conflict.
The view that only some people do in fact disagree about what is moral, and that in such disagreements, nobody is objectively right or wrong.
Metaethical relativism is basically skepticism about the existence of any firm and universal moral principle. Since people have a variety of differing moral beliefs, is there any basic principle that we can use as a starting point to create a code of ethics?