Moral Relativism
It's obvious that people around the world do many things differently. They have different forms of government, customs, languages, and cultures. They also have different moral attitudes. Significant and morally charged activities, from raising children to sex role differences, vary in different places and at different times. Practices considered crucial in one culture may seem absurd in another.
Undue criticism of different ways of behaving is a form of chauvinism: the view, stemming from excessive loyalty, that one's cultural way of doing things is the only right way. Relativists believe that such criticism may be based on a failure to appreciate, or a misinterpretation of, the significance of the actions of others, or it may be a simple value disagreement, just as you and I may legitimately differ over whether Stevie Ray Vaughn was a better guitarist than Jimi Hendrix.
Cultural Relativism is the view that absolute standards are not properly used to judge moral viewpoints, and that morality is relative to local codes and customs. The right thing for a person from Canada may be wrong for someone from Japan. Everyone should be morally judged by his or her own social rules, practices, conventions, and norms.
Once these observations are made, we may go further and question whether criticizing our next-door neighbors, who act significantly differently from us, is morally proper. They may dress differently, have a different work ethic, view sexual relationships differently, and so on. They might not directly harm anyone else but just live a different style of life. If judging actions in other cultures is chauvinistic, aren't we equally wrong to judge the actions of people near us who adopt a different lifestyle?
An extreme ethical relativism directs each person to establish his or her own moral code.
Once established, people have a moral responsibility to live by their code.
Relativism, as a moral doctrine, contains another moral claim. Relativists defend the right of cultures or individuals to establish their own morality by claiming that everyone has an obligation to be tolerant. Yet this seems to be an absolute demand: the one thing we cannot do is to establish for ourselves an intolerant moral view that attacks the morality of another. Nevertheless tolerance seems to be a good thing.
Relativism is part of moral experience. Many react negatively to morally righteous people who want to tell others how to live their lives. People in Japan know best how the Japanese should live, and people in my house know best how we should live. This is part of moral experience, but only part. Many moral theories are universally oriented; they claim that everyone should live by the same rules and principles. Much of what is advocated in these theories makes sense as well; even the relativist typically insists on the universal value of tolerance. The point is that moral relativism should not be taken too far.
The ethical relativist claims that moral problems are solved by applying culturally or individually relative moral standards. Each person is bound by a relative moral code, relative either to a culture or sub-culture or to a set of individually established standards.