There seems to be a gray area regarding where the line is drawn in regard to Moral Relativism. "Moral Relativism is the claim that what is really right or wrong is what the culture says is right or wrong" (Bowie 536). This concept can seem pretty straightforward, yet also cause some very unstable ground to form a decision from. It seems to be true that while between different countries; where cultures are very dissimilar, morals are absolutely relative. What may be considered morally sound here may be entirely wrong somewhere else. This is even true if you look at different areas of the same country even. Here in America for example we here in the North are quite different than those in the South in many ways (Kissin' Cousins, right?).
When you look at an individual level however, things can get complicated. Many countries like ours seem to be a cultural melting pot so cultures clashing is common. That's simply why we see so many neighborhoods seem to be comprised of similar people. Be it something on a smaller scale like a simple personal disagreement, then these issues usually do not develop into much further thought. People have different views on smaller things especially. The opposite is true though if a larger dispute is at hand, and the courts are involved. Things develop into more in-depth arguments. Domestically, things can thankfully be clarified by a uniform rule of law (in theory).
As we can see here, several issues are posed in Moral Relativism. There are a lot of holes in the logic and it is hard to stand behind. For a simple concept, it really leaves us with a lot of difficult situations. One can simply see here that when conducting business abroad, it is wise to consider another realm of possible outcomes.
Would like feedback about the writing on moral relativism>