These are all examples of cultural norms that people in one society may be used to. Norms that you are used to are neither right nor wrong, just different. Picture walking into a nearly empty movie theater when visiting another country, and not sitting next to the only person in the theater.

Relativists often do claim that an action/judgment etc. is morally required of a person. For example, if a person believes that abortion is morally wrong, then it IS wrong — for her. In other words, it would be morally wrong for Susan to have an abortion if Susan believed that abortion is always morally wrong.

One advantage of ethical relativism is that it allows for a wide variety of cultures and practices. The disadvantage of ethical relativism is that truth, right and wrong, and justice are all relative. Just because a group of people think that something is right does not make it so. Slavery is a good example of this.

James Rachels’ article, Morality is Not Relative, discusses Cultural Relativism and its fallacy along with the Cultural Differences Argument, which according to ourhappyschool.com is “Different cultures have different moral codes. Therefore, there is no objective “truth” in morality.

Absolute truth is something that is true at all times and in all places. One way or another, these are all truths because they are logically true. Absolute truths are discovered, not invented.

Since the opposite of “relative” is “absolute,” the opposite of “relativism” seems to be “absolutism”, a word that usually connotes “authoritarianism” or “dogmatism”.

Why is cultural relativism self-contradictory? Because it is a culture of itself where individuals who enact outside of its own culture are effectively “wrong,” except that can’t be the case because the culture has to accept what the outside culture holds to be true because it’s different.