moral relativism (Streitfeld). Essentially, moral realism is an objective view while moral realism is a subjective view (Streitfeld) Moral realism holds that a thing is either right or it is wrong (Kim)
This is not necessarily true when one takes the time to explore what is meant by moral realism vs. moral relativism (Streitfeld)
Thus, morality is not rigid and may change from wrong to right under varying circumstances, and it is therefore subjective (Kim). Moreover, the moral relativist would argue that a moral judgment is only "true or false relative to some particular standpoint (for instance, that of a culture or a historical period) and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others" (Westacott)
Moral Relativism is a point-of-view, which holds that the truth or justification of moral judgments, is not absolute but determined by society or its culture (Gowan 2004)
The argument is whether moral relativism is correct or not. One side maintains that it is as true and valid as Einstein's law of motion, which assumes a specific but individual framework in which it operates (Harman 1996)
It has psychological appeal. Moral absolutism produces feelings of guilt, inner displeasure and unhappiness (Kreeft 2003)
(Harman). To emphasize and elucidate, moral relativism states that morality is changeable, subjective and thus relative to times that change and which cannot be retrieved (Pojman and Thomson 2007)
Thus, moral relativism and cultural relativism have their place. They prevent people from assuming absolute rational standards, and they encourage open-mindedness and tolerance (Rachels)