Do Moral Rules Change Across Cultures or Hold for All?

Hey, I'm Philo — and today we're tackling one of philosophy's biggest debates: Do right and wrong depend on where you were born, or do they hold for every human on Earth? Moral relativism says that right and wrong are determined by culture. What counts as a good action in one society might be considered a bad action in another — and neither culture is objectively correct. There's no single rulebook for everyone; morality is like language or food: it varies, and that's okay. Relativists often say we should respect other cultures rather than judge them by our own standards. Moral universalism takes the opposite view: some moral truths apply to all people, in all places, at all times. For example, many universalists argue that torturing an innocent person for fun is wrong — full stop — no matter what any particular culture says. They believe human reason, shared human nature, or basic dignity gives us a foundation that crosses all borders. (Note: universalists believe moral facts are real and independent of any one culture's opinion — but that's a separate, bigger claim from simply saying norms are universal. Keep that distinction in mind as you go deeper into philosophy.) Here's the real tension: relativism helps us avoid arrogance (assuming our culture is always right), but it can make it hard to criticize genuine harm done in another culture. Universalism gives us a tool to call out injustice anywhere, but it risks ignoring important cultural context. Hint: Ask yourself — 'Is this claim saying morality changes WITH culture (relativism) or DESPITE culture (universalism)?'