The latter argument is much harder to reconcile with reason than the former. In comprehensive terms, relativism appeals to the idea that there is no absolute ethical standard independent of cultural context to act as a criterion of right and wrong, by which we may judge moral action. .
The main problem with subjectivism is that it destroys the distinction between believing something to be morally right and its actually being right (Shaw, 15). Furthermore, subjectivism does not lend itself to moral argument whatsoever. Indeed, what would be the point of arguing with a subjectivist if s/he believed that their beliefs were correct merely because they held them? And if morality for any given person is contingent upon their beliefs, then is it possible to be mistaken? We would not be able to do wrong if we acted out of our personal beliefs system, as we almost always do. It is most likely that the proponents of subjectivism intended to suggest that one must decide on what is right or wrong to do in any situation for themselves, and that we ought not blame others for acting out of their own sincere moral judgement (Shaw, 16). These points are certainly more credible than the former, but hardly represent a relativistic standpoint. .
Likewise, to the claim that morality is relative to the culture in which one lives there are some puzzling rebuttals, however, with some rationalization one may arrive at a plausible argument for ethnic relativism. The most common argument against relativism in general runs thus: " the variety of moral judgements no more justifies the denial of moral objectivity than the diversity in judgement about the course of things disproves the objectivity of the truth." (Westermarck, 412) It is worthy to note here that Westermarck is not promoting this opinion, he is merely recognizing it, as he is a relativist. .
Shaw also provides a plethora of excellent questions concerning the cultural branch of relativism.
