Supporters of relativism believe that morality in the objective sense does not exist. The moral norms adopted in society are not obligatory for adherence and execution. In absolute terms, the concepts of evil and good are nothing more than fiction. In this regard, researcher Porus noted that moral relativism could easily degenerate into permissiveness (Bush and Moss, 2020). Moreover, people who adhere to this point of view can be perceived as the ones trying to devalue moral norms to the lowest possible level, will not attempt to seek compromises and negotiate on mutually beneficial terms.
On the contrary, objectivism states that there is right and wrong that do not depend on someone’s opinions or other factors. In this sense, moral standards are believed to be propounded and everlasting, not created by humans. There are many philosophical variations and interpretations of objectivism, but the key idea lies in proclaiming one genuine truth. This evidently opposes the concept of relativism in every aspect (Bush and Moss, 2020). Objectivism, however, admits that some moral norms may change, but at thy core, any rules and standards evolve around an unaltered understanding of bad and good.
I find relativism more convincing despite some flaws it contains. Although absolute relativity often signals the absence of a moral and ethical core and is thus unreliable, the theory of relativism has more realistic features. Every day we face elections, the result of which often cannot be called correct or not. Most people, in principle, always try to act ethically, but even then, their actions can be perceived negatively. You will not please everyone precisely because, despite some existing ideas about good and evil, you make decisions that pass through the prism of experience, psychological characteristics of a person, circumstances, and weighing many factors. I find objectivism too utopian an ultimatum, which seeks to simplify morality while threatening it with a distorted view of reality.