Before we get closer to the ethical relativism, we have to take the term “relativism”’ at the general level. Relativism is a doctrine that a claim is true or false only in relation to some particular viewpoint or perspective. The main point that I have understood from the reading that specific kinds of relativism distinguish themselves, according to which kinds of claims the doctrine of relativism applies to, and which viewpoint or perspective these claims are relative to. In other words, we may say each type of relativism carries its own (individual, unique) idea.
Ethical relativism stands for denial of universally valid moral principles (Pojman p.26). In other words, there is no objective right or wrong. Such understanding came from the term as “ moral skepticism”, the view that there is no valid moral principle at all (Pojman p.26).
L. Pojman examines three types of thesis of relativism. The first thesis is the Diversity Thesis. This thesis considers that what is morally right and wrong varies from society to society, so that there are no moral principles accepted by all societies. The second thesis is the Dependency Thesis, asserts that individual acts right or wrong depending on the nature of society in which they occur (Pojman p.27). Then Ethical Relativism concludes that there are no universally valid moral principles, objective standards that apply to all people everywhere and at all times.
There are three main issues that Pojman tries to demonstrate and concentrate on: actions vary from society to society, individuals’ behavior depends on the society they belong to, and there are no standards of living that apply to all human kind. An example that may demonstrate these ideas is that people all over the word eat beef, but in India it is a sacred animal. The second example may depict such situation as before entering the house a lot of people take off their shoes but in Mexico, it is rare that people take off their shoes. The third...