In Chapter One we defined ethics as the search for the most general and objectively valid moral principles. As we pointed out in that chapter and as should be obvious anyway, this assumes that there are such universal, objectively valid moral principles and, conversely, that if there are not such objectively valid moral principles, then ethics, as we are here using the term, is strictly impossible. But it is precisely the existence of objective ethical standards which is denied by the popular view known as "ethical relativism." Since the very existence of ethics depends on an answer to the question of the correctness or incorrectness of ethical relativism, an examination of ethical relativism is the logical place to begin a discussion of ethics. It is also a good place to begin because ethical relativism is an extremely popular position familiar to everyone even before beginning a philosophy course on "ethics."

What is ethical relativism? As we will see, that is not as easy to answer as it might seem at first. But the basic idea behind the theory is clear enough. It is based on the fact that different people hold different moral beliefs which are difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile. We are all familiar with the fact that different people believe in different moral principles. Today, for example, the debate rages concerning abortion; some people feel quite strongly that abortion in any form is simply murder, while others feel equally strongly that abortion is morally justifiable in certain circumstances, and that even where it is not morally defensible, the state has no right to interfere in a woman's personal decision in such a private matter...