Moral relativism is the idea that all morality is variable and ranges from person to person, and

what holds true for one person may not necessarily have the same value to another. This
could certainly be valid, particularly for contemporary issues such as abortion and body
modification, as more than one view point is presented due to cultural or background
differences. Of course, a drawback to this view point is that there are some borderlines which
remain ethically correct/incorrect regardless of what parties are involved, with the exception
of minor cases (anomalies in moral judgment). Yet one can argue that these are still relative
to the social upbringing and as the majority receive very similar experiences in life certain
ethics could be regarded as absolute. Society and political ideas also have a large impact on
this, such as the issue of media freedom, as does religion, such as vegetarianism (the
argument for is that it is more healthy/economically beneficial/easily sustained, against being
that it is natural that humans follow the food chain/biological evidence that humans were
born omnivorous) and the Islamic judicial system of Sharia (for: correct in the eyes of God,
no definite proof that this is a false belief, very impractical to dissolve from a culture, against:
violation of human rights –which in itself is arguable-, controversial).

Another perspective of this is that ethics could vary depending on the situation. For example,
if one had to drive over the speed limit as one had to reach a hospital, it is arguable that this is
more ethically correct than idly driving slower which has potential risks for one’s wellbeing.
However, it is also possible to counter this by observing the danger this poses to others by a
speeding car.