Without an objective, neutral source for morality there is no way for morality to be

objective. Realists can cite any myriad of sources that attempt to provide a neutral and
authoritative ground for morality but at the end of the day every single one of those sources is
entirely relative to beliefs already held by the realist. For example, if you take the word of God
as your “objective moral basis” you have to accept God as a belief. Every other basis for a
potential objective moral basis has the same problem, every single one of them requires you to
accept another notion that is contentious at best. Without an objective moral basis to base beliefs
off of realism is off the table for me. I do not see it being likely that the universe would provide
something so objective and anthropocentric when considering our insignificance in the grand
scheme of things.

This means that morality must be relative to some degree, though culture is not the
defining factor. Cultural relativism implies that cultures are a monolith, with everyone born
and/or living in a given culture has to share a common moral ground with those around them. I
do not believe that notion to be remotely true. If I were to survey everyone in any given group on
their ethical views I guarentee there would be plenty of different answers, sure there would most
likely be overlap but that is not the same as a universal cultural morality.

This then suggests a form of relativity based in the individual. Moral beliefs founded in
every single person. We are all the masters of our own lives, we have the ability to curate ethical
principles and integrate them into our lives. Even if you are taking your beliefs from another
source you are still making the choice to integrate those beliefs into your life. You may think you
are using the word of God as your source but at the end of the day you are choosing to have faith
and choosing to use scripture as your moral base. The only ethics we can have start with us and
end outside of us.