What I like is different from what I think is morally right. When someone makes a moral claim, they are not merely stating their preference. If I say that abortion is wrong, I am not saying merely that I don’t like it, I am saying it is wrong regardless of whether I like it or not. Without this distinction, all morality collapses into mere personal preference or moral relativism.
Evolutionist/atheist Aldous Huxley said, “We objected to morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom.” It is my view that many relativists do not want objective morals to exist as they may then be accountable for their moral actions. Regardless of the reasons why it is held, relativism reduces morality to mere personal preference. The only way to have an immoral individual is to have a moral standard, but in moral relativism, there is no such standard as everyone does his own thing. The tests of logic and practice can be effectively used to test the notion of moral relativism.
First, the very concept of morality suggests the existence of a standard or reference point to be deviated from. Human beings make moral choices daily. Second, to state that “there are no moral absolutes” (as I have heard many people say) is an example of a self-referential and self stultifying statement because it is making an objective (or universal) observation about the nature of morality which is in direct contradiction to the statement itself. This is like saying, “The only moral absolute is that there are no moral absolutes.” No moral absolutes are allowed in moral relativism. In this regard, it commits logical suicide. Moral relativism fails the test of logic.
Another way to test the validity of moral relativism is to use the test of practice, i.e. to observe how self-proclaimed relativists live. The fact is that no one can live as a relativist, thus there is no such thing as a relativist. The relativist must erase all language of should, praise, blame, good, bad, right, wrong, from his vocabulary as these words and concepts suggest an objective moral standard and to employ them is a contradiction of the core essence of relativism. Furthermore, a relativist cannot complain about right wing extremists, someone stealing his stereo or kicking him in the knee, or object if I tell him his relativism is wrong. No one can live this way. I have personally talked to self-proclaimed relativists who have told me in so many words, “Don’t force your morality on me.” However, if it is right for me to do so, then the relativist cannot object without contradicting the relativistic ethic. I might reply, “Why not?” whereby the relativist might reply, “Because it isn’t right to force your morality on others,” whereby I could reply, “Is that your morality and why are you forcing it on me?” If it is right for me to force my morality on a relativist, then under the rules of relativism, it is right. Relativism fails the test of practice. It is true that I, as a moral absolutist, cannot live strictly according to absolute morals, however this does not contradict the moral absolutist view because it is not inconsistent with reason, human experience and practice, and I readily admit that I, as a sinful human being, cannot live up to perfect moral standards.
The wider practical implications of moral relativism are frightening. If moral relativism is a valid ethic, then there can be no moral difference between torturing a baby and feeding the poor; Hitler could not be wrong, neither could female circumcision in Egypt, or human sacrifice; Murder, rape, incest, and burglary cannot be declared wrong by a moral relativist if they are right to me (these acts may be legally wrong, but in relativism, laws can have no objective moral basis, therefore to say something is illegal is not to say it is morally wrong). A relativist can only say they are wrong in his personal view, but who cares about his opinion if I am a serial killer with my own personal ethic to follow? Besides, the word “wrong” is meaningless in relativism. A relativist might respond that situations are so diverse and complex that no one moral rule can be universal and I would grant this, however, this is very different from proving that relativism is correct. At best, this shows that absolute principles must be applied to different situations. If relativism is a valid ethic, i.e. if it is true that we ought to allow each person to define their own moral good, then it follows that those who do the most consistent job of this would be the best kind of people. We have a label for a person who makes up their own moral rules - a SOCIOPATH! If the person who manifests relativism in the most consistent fashion is the best role model, then a sociopath would be the poster boy for relativism (perhaps like Harris and Klebold of Columbine fame). Thus, if relativism is a valid ethic, Harris and Klebold were not morally wrong in slaughtering 13 people at Columbine High - they were good relativists.
I believe the tests of reason, experience, and practice sufficiently demonstrate that moral relativism is a false anti-intuitive ethic. If our society and educational institutions continue to give validity to this absurd brand of morality, e.g. “values clarification” and “situational ethics,” then I believe we can expect more Columbine-style massacres in the future, as our children will learn to do whatever they like, whenever they like, without regard to anyone else. Since relativism is given validity by our nation’s schools, can we escape the conclusion that we are breeding sociopaths?
Are you a sociopath? If you are a moral relativist, I don't see how you can escape the label.
Individuals can, and do, make their own decisions about what is moral. Some conform to generally accepted systems. Some don't.
As you say no society can exist in which all systems are given equal validity. So we have law - which is public morality. There is and always has been tension between the two. "Render unto Caesar..." is one way the tension has been resolved.
So far I think we are in agreement. Where we differ is that you feel a need for, and find evidence of, an objective morality - most probably religious in origin. I don't. Certainly we are all human beings and that places certain constraints on us but how, and in what detail, that translates to specific moral rules is, for me, far from definite and much subject to modification and experimentation.