From where is the nature of morality derived? Is it in a universal theory that applies to all or is morality rather distinct to each culture? The former is referred to as the Universalist theory, and the latter is known as the Moral Relativist theory. Moral relativism is the view there is no universal set of moral principles. Rather moral codes are relative to their particular cultures. This theory then goes to say that we cannot judge others with different values, or attempt to make them conform to our own values, because their values are as justifiable as ours from the perspective of their culture. On the other hand, Universalism, the general opposing theory, states that two conflicting moral codes cannot both be right and there is only one that stands out in truth. These two theories present opposite sides of a 'moral spectrum.' By analyzing one of them, moral relativism in this case, we should be able to conclude which theory will hold over the topic of morality. Our inquiry will show its pros verse its cons, and in the end hopefully one will outweigh the other. We will start by outlining the pros, asking what is it that makes moral relativism plausible?
             In her paper A Defense of Moral Relativism, Ruth Benedict sets to prove that moral rules vary from one society to another. She begins her discussion with the topic of homosexuality, referring to it as a "culturally discarded trait" in our society. Such 'abnormalities' of our culture, she says, are actually "...selected for elaboration in different societies." She points out that Plato, in his work the Republic, wrote that homosexuality was "...one of the major means to the good life." Our view of homosexuality, however, is usually not the same. But then is one view more correct than the other? Her answer is no. The only reason we view homosexuals as incompetent is because we put so much pressure on them to change what they really are, but this is actually an ...