Ethical Relativism: There is no right and wrong.

The theory of ethical relativism:
There are no universally valid moral principles, but rather that all moral principles are valid
relative to culture or individual choice. It is to be distinguished from moral skepticism—the view
that there are no valid moral principles at all (or at least we cannot know whether there are any)—and from all forms of moral objectivism or absolutism.

Louis Pojman
Ethics: Discovering Rightand Wrong

Join us in these discussions Here is a PDF of the book we will use. Read chapter two for the next meeting.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xezj7FPddS3dyGF0kbmpF8C4RId_GtCE/view?usp=drive_link

Consider again John Ladd's apt characterization of the theory: Ethical relativism is the doctrine that the moral rightness and wrongness of actions varies from society to society and that there are no absolute universal moral standards binding on all men at all times.
Accordingly, it holds that whether or not it is right for an individual to act in a certain way depends on or is relative to the society to which he belongs.
If we analyze this passage, we derive the following argument:
1. What is considered morally right and wrong varies from society to
society so that there are no moral principles accepted by all societies.
2. All moral principles derive their validity from cultural acceptance.
3. Therefore, there are no universally valid moral principles, objective
standards that apply to all people everywhere and at all times.