Moral relativism claims that morality is not based on any absolute standard. According to moral relativism, ethical truth is more likely to come from situations, cultures, and sensations. The source of moral universalism is considered human nature, particularly the susceptibility of a person, the ability to empathize, and the resulting need for argumentation for persuasion. The two moral concepts are opposed, but moral universalism seems to be more truthful.
Several arguments can be made concerning moral relativism that reflect a dubious nature. Firstly, while many of the arguments that insist on supporting relativism may seem compelling, they all have a logical contradiction in that they all return the correct moral schema that all people should follow, which constitutes moral universalism. Secondly, relativists may argue that different cultures have different values and that morality is relative to different people. However, these arguments explain people’s actions in terms of absolute standards, so it converges back to moral universalism.
Moral universalism presupposes the existence of an ethical system that effectively regulates the behavior of members of any community, regardless of culture, race, gender, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, or any other distinguishing features. The simplest justification for this point of view is the obvious observation that in all known moral codes that have proven their viability, there is a common core: respect for life, health, property, and personal dignity. Moral universalism seems to be the more truthful theory. Firstly, moral relativism is built on exceptions, not on general rules. All people approach morality from human nature, which explains approximately the same moral and ethical codes of all countries and peoples. Moral norms are considered basic everywhere, for example, the prohibition of murder. Secondly, if everyone had their own morality and ethics, as moral relativism suggests, it would be impossible to regulate human relations.