Moral relativism implies that no individual, society or culture possesses the grounds to ethically

dispute the moral rightness of practices or beliefs held by others. Moral judgements in this
philosophy can only be judged as true or false relative to the framework within which they occur.

"Isn't all morality relative?"
There seems to be a fairly pervasive acceptance of moral relativism in other culture these days.
Per contra, my answer to this question is pretty clearly "no."
First, relativists say that the truth of moral statements are derived by the framework of a culture,
they seem to believe that all members that culture automatically agree with the moral framework
which they supposedly share.  Many cultures today have sub-communities that disagree sharply
on matters such as abortion, euthanasia, and polygamy.  With this saying, which set of norms
and values are we supposed to refer to when judging a belief or practice?  If the relevant norms
are those of the sub-culture to which the person making the claim belongs, then the relativist
position seems to be dwelling down toward subjectivism.
Second, cultures tend to share a wide agreement on values and the real differences seem to lie
in factual misconceptions. If tribe A says its okay to kill a member of a tribe B, it usually is from
an underlying factual belief. Like that the other tribe are monsters and not fully humans. If you
can convince tribe A that tribe B is just as human as they are, they tend to change their view on
if they should be killed or not. So, the existence of different cultural views on morality doesn’t
actually count as evidence for moral relativism.
Where are the governing lines that separate cultures and when do they apply? What if a man
from culture A, has sex with a woman from culture B, in a country where culture C is present, by
what cultural morality are they judged by? If you say there are some kinds of external rules
which govern these cultural divides, and decide where different cultural moral views apply, how
is that not setting an objective standard that we must abide by?
Third, moral relativism torments from the Reformer’s Dilemma. If moral relativism is true, it is
rationally impossible for a society to have a virtuous moral reformer like Martin Luther King or
Mahatma Gandhi. If it is indeed, King and Gandhi are not virtuous, they are an error for going
against the cultural moral norms. As Emrys Westacott utters, “Moral relativism seems to imply
for an instance that the majority can never be wrong on moral matters. And a corollary of that
within a given community, dissidents must always be wrong.”
In conclusion, while moral relativism is in many ways a widely held view, when we go beneath
the surface, we can see that there are insurmountable philosophical problems for the view.
Given this, and given the problems of applying the view to daily life, I maintain a hardline stance
that morality is not relative.