Relativism is a fundamentally incomplete philosophy. It stops digging for the truth. In essence, the core of relativism is the belief that there lies no objective moral truth for every situation one encounters; the correct moral code to abide by does not exist, but rather is different for each specific situation. Relativists live by this philosophy going on in life believing that for particular situations, they should do what they believe is right. These ethical relativists neglect their philosophical duties of digging further for the objective truth. You see, every situation has an objective moral truth to it. Yes, most situations are relative where in two different scenarios, when one variable is changed you are given moral obligation to act a different way, but even though the two scenarios are different, an objective moral truth existed. What relativists don't see is that while every situation is different, an objective truth exists for that very specific situation, even if it is the first time it is presented.
This could be much stronger if you wrote it more like a philosophy thesis, where it is common to explain the previous ideas on the subject, then to refute them based on observations, logic, and thought experiments, among other methods. Finally, and generally only at the very end, would you provide an alternative, and then explain how it follows logically from the problems with the other systems of thought.
I agree about the behavior of relativists, but I'm going to argue with you because I want to see more discussion.
If the objective truths are granular enough don't they change relative to the situation? Perhaps they change relative to the individual making the choice as well so that you can't make proper moral rules (the "correct moral code"). That would more or less still be relativism.
By changing relative to the individual, I mean: Say I'm having an excelent day and I'm super happy and I treat a cashier with bare politeness, not sharing my mood at all. I'm being pretty selfish, aren't I?
But say I'm having a bad day and I want to snap at everyone I meet, but I treat the cashier with bare politeness, not sharing my mood at all -- now I'm being kind. Eh?while every situation is different, an objective truth exists for that very specific situation
Relativists say, "no, not everything is objective because each situation is different or a person might think a certain action is better morally better than another" when in reality, for each relative situation THERE IS AN OBJECTIVE TRUTH. So yes, the objective truths do change "relative to the situation," but there still is an objective truth to each of those situations. Relativists have it wrong because they think that there isn't just one answer to anything, when in reality, there is. In both situations where you treat the cashier with bare politeness, you are doing the wrong thing. You should treat the cashier with kindness because it is virtuous and it maximizes the total happiness in the situation. It doesn't matter how you are feeling, there is an objective way to treat the cashier: with kindness.