how people actually behave (de facto values), and not on an ideal standard f how people should behave (ideal values). This idea of basing morality on how people actually behave is an appealing idea. Instead of setting up these rules for moral conduct, we should create a set of moral rules that are consistent with the moral principles that are actually in place in a culture. Cultural variation refers to differences in knowledge or belief among individuals.
             Many philosophers of moral relativism claim that there are no universal moral truths, or absolute morals. We grow up in a social atmosphere that tells us what is right and wrong. If our own personal morality is different from another culture's, we tend to believe that they are wrong, and our cultural views of morality hold more merit. Societies, in general, must adhere to certain core values for them to exist. However, not all societies value the same morals. For example, many cultures value honesty and prohibition of murder. Obviously, these values can be broken based on given situations, but these exceptions would depend on the situation. A society that allows murdering and lying would be shortly lived. Moral relativism allows for the possibility that something could be morally right in one society, but morally wrong in another. Moral relativism takes tolerance and acceptance to an extreme, which is its Achilles' heel. It is not possible for something to be right and wrong at the same time, but moral relativism allows for the possibility of this to be the case. The variance in moral belief in a society is often portrayed to be greater than it actually is.
             The argument that morals are absolute despite their contest is inconsistent with Christian history and practices. The problems with this argument are clearly represented in the Christian Crusades. During the Crusades, the Christians killed hundreds of thousands of non-Christian people in the name of Christi...