Ethical relativism is supported by the disagreement about what is right and wrong because of personal and social ethical relativism and the natural law theory. Ethical relativism can be defined as a theory that holds that there are no universally accepted moral standards. In other words there is no objective right or wrong. Personal ethical relativism basically says that different people have different moral beliefs. Social ethical relativism says that different societies have different moral beliefs. The natural law theory suggests that there is a universal set of moral beliefs, which contradicts ethical relativism, but it is flawed.
             Individual or personal ethical relativism, also known as descriptive ethical relativism, states that "ethical judgments and beliefs are the expressions of the moral outlook and attitudes of individual persons". (MacKinnon) Every person has their own personalized set of moral values. I have mine and you have yours. For example, I may believe it is wrong to have sex on the first date. You may have no problem with sex in any circumstance. Someone else may not believe in having sex before marriage, or even maybe not at all. If any one of the previous views were to be judged as right or wrong, a system of moral standards would have to be put into place. But there is no universal set of moral standards in which to judge the previous views. Therefore, any one of those beliefs may be right or wrong. This example proves that there are differences in moral beliefs between people and therefore represent ethical relativism.
             Social or cultural ethical relativism, also known as normative ethical relativism, states that "ethical values vary from society to society and that the basis for moral judgments lies in these social or cultural views". (MacKinnon) Every society has a set of moral standards but not all societies share the same set of moral standards. For example, the United States as a natio...