Ethical Relativism

Ethical relativism is the idea that there is no universal moral truth, that each culture has its own set of rules that are valid for that culture, and we have no right to interfere, just as they have no right to interfere with our rules. Other moral approaches presented in this chapter include moral nihilism which means that there is no universal moral code. Another, moral skepticism is the belief that we can't know for certain if there are any universal truths. A final standpoint on morality is moral subjectivism, which holds that moral views are merely inner states in a person and that they cant be compared to the inner states of another person, so a moral viewpoint is only valid for the person who holds it.
These are all interesing stances on ethics, the problem with them is that all of them have flaws. The moral nihilist is a hard stance to defend in most situations because, for example if you see somebody abusing a child you are inclined to step in. A moral nihilist could not step in because there is ultimately no right or wrong.
A problem associated with ethical relativism is that at what point of culural practice crosses the line of inhumanity where another culture should interfere. For example, the situation in Rwanda a few years ago where the united states had to get involved after the genocide of an indiginous people was goin to wipe ou there race. A true realtivist could not get involved because this culture would have the right to do this becuse within there culture it is correct so we cannot interfere. This is the problem with Ethical relativsm, there needs to be a set of universal guidelines or a universal code in which all cultures can adhere to and are still able to have there own moral code within their culture.