moral relativism

Today, the focus of our class discussion was different approaches to ethics. The practice of relativism, for example was deemed very popular among my classmates, and shown in an extremely positive light. I would definitely not call myself an anti-relativist per say, because I do believe that there are glimpses of truth in moral relativism. However, despite it's appealing aspects, I think that relativism is essentially a threat to the study of ethics. Relativists maintain that there are no moral rules that apply to all cultures or all people in one culture and that no country or person should impose his or her moral rules on any other culture or person. I definitely see the appeal in having a relativist point of view--it eliminates conflict and confusion. But if we all sat around a campfire and said "Well, he has his opinion and I have mine," we get nowhere in moral discussion and argument. Basically, we stand for nothing.

I once read somewhere that in medieval Japanese culture, the Samurai warrior class had a practice when they received their sword, it was necessary for him to try to see if it worked properly. The Samurai would then try out his new sword on a wanderer or traveler. If he could cut the stranger in half, the sword was deemed worthy. Additionally, even today such cruel practices occur in cultures outside of America. This past year I took an anthropology class on African and Middle Eastern cultures. In some of these, in order to prevent women from being promiscuous, people practice female circumcision. The reasoning goes that since the possibility of sexual pleasure is gone, then the possibility of one's wife being unfaithful is gone as well.

In response to these practices, a relativist is likely to approve of these. In reality though, human life and human dignity is significantly threatened. Should we really just stand by, watch, and let it all happen for the sake of "cultural acceptance"?