Arguments Against Ethical Relativism

Saying that ethics are relative is an effortless way to avoid a controversial topic concerning ethics. In the case of relativism, we can simply say that your opinion is true and mine too and nothing being wrong with that. On the other hand, ethical absolutism tells us that there is an objective moral code and that certain of our actions as humans are necessarily right or wrong. What would happen if we say two contradictory statements can't coexist as Aristotle demonstrated? Through the law of non-contradiction from Aristotle and ethical absolutism, I will argue against ethical relativism.

In ethical absolutism, there is only one answer on certain human actions, following an objective moral code. According to absolutists, this code has been the same ever since humans have existed. Logically, this code applies to everyone the same, even to a civilization that has existed centuries ago or to any rational being in the universe. In our case of the dinner party, if I believe that abortion is wrong, and the other person believes that abortion is right, then automatically there is at least one person who is right and the other who is wrong.
Whatever we may consider progress to be, usually considered an upgrade, ethical relativism blocks out the reason for considering progress. To take a clearer example than the debate about abortion, if I was to say that a brick house is as good as a straw house, yet we only dispose of straw because it is readily available, there is no reason given in my statement to push you to build a brick house. Back to our example, many people consider the legalization of abortion to be social progress. Others say otherwise. Yet, if a society has a set rule about abortion, and the society is adhering to ethical relativism, then they have no reason ever to change their legalization regarding abortion because it is both a right and wrong thing at the same