Now we move on to moral relativism. I don't think Plato recognized the distinction between moral relativism and pure relativism in his time, and neither did I in my college days. Moral relativism limits its scope to moral truth. It claims that all moral truth is relative to the individual or the culture. Follow. Sex isn't right or wrong. Sex is wrong for Christians, and okay for others. Abortion is wrong for this person, but okay for this person. And logically, murder is wrong for this person and okay for this person. I'm sure examples one and two are charmingly seductive for some people, but example three should just scream... "Mistake." Unless you really want to justify the beliefs of a serial killer, moral relativism has got to go. Looking at cultures, you run into the same problem; the Aztecs practiced human sacrifice, the Nazi's slaughtered Jews. Moral relativism gives you no ground to criticize either culture. The world is a better place now that human sacrifice has been relegated to the past. The world is a better place now that people of any particular religion are not herded together like cattle and slaughtered.
The problem that leads to relativism, as I understand it, involves the enculteration thesis. The above constitute the counterexamples that plague moral relativism. Another strong objection is the learning objection.
