I disagree with moral objectivists’ claim that moral judgments are objectively true. However, I do not particularly hold a relativist’s view - that moral judgments are true relative to a particular moral code - since I would need to be historically, culturally, religiously and politically aware for all eras (past and present) of all countries to be able to conclude (or believe that I have reasons to conclude) anything once and for all. Instead, I intend to show why I believe moral objectivism is not plausible and that in fact, moral relativism and objectivism are not as different from each other as it seems.

For the purposes of this essay, I will omit religious aspects of moral objectivism. A religion can provide reasons behind its moral codes and why we ought to employ them as our own. And if it were universally accepted or if we can absolutely prove the plausibility of the religion, there would not be any discussion on moral objectivism and relativism or other various types of theories regarding morality. However, there are countless religions with different moral codes and a large number of people who are not influenced by any. And to accept one particular religion as the basis of human morality (e.g. Because God said so!) would not lead to a sophisticated argument for or against any particular theory.