Cultural diversity

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.  it may be the case that
some moral beliefs are culturally relative whereas others are not. Certain practices, such as
customs regarding dress and decency, may depend on local custom whereas other practices,
such as slavery, torture, or political repression, may be governed by universal moral standards
and judged wrong despite the many other differences that exist among cultures. Simply
because some practices are relative does not mean that all practices are relative.
Argument from respect

Tolerance is not always good or always a virtue. A lot of people would argue that tolerance should be
tempered with a sense of outrage in the face of extreme evil. Relativism
seems to be
obviously true to many people. It also seems obviously true to many of those
people, that since what is right for one group isn't right for another group, then
we need to be tolerant of everyone. This recognition of moral freedom is the
only absolute value that relativists adhere to. Tolerance is NOT a value of
relativism. Perhaps I should say it this way: if you are a relativist, you certainly
do not need to be tolerant of other people. Or rather, if you are a relativist, it is
not inconsistent with your relativism to be intolerant of those who disagree
with you.

Psychological argument

The persons morality is a primary function of his/her own free volition or free will. The human person
then becomes the sole creator of his/her values, nothing more and nothing less. One’s moral
development or formation therefore, is entirely a matter of decision not condition.

Argument for conformity

Majority is not always right we know for a fact that the minority can also be correct in moral matter. We
just have to take a serious at history to see the presence of so-called moral reformers. If the majority is
always right, then all these and the many other moral reformists are simply wrong.

Provability argument

If we are uncertain about the morality of some of our actions and decisions and cannot really “prove”
then beyond any reasonable doubt. This does not mean that it has no answer whatsoever. Even if there
were no solid way to know moral truth, it would not follow that there are no such truth. It may be that
some truths are forever hidden from us but the very statement that they are hidden paradoxically Co
firms that they exist.