Moral Relativism... my new focus for a while.

Moral relativism to me is such a load of phooey. It is (at least the way it appears) is the moral relativist wants to live the way they want to live with no fear of consequences. in a nut shell. well here are a few things i have to say.

1. this is taken from wikipedia (such a reliable source i know ;) )

"

Defending relativism
Another critique of moral relativism which falls into this category postulates that anyone who claims that no moral absolutes exist undermines their ability to justify their own existence. According to this argument, if a moral relativist is intellectually honest, they have no right to claim that they should remain unharmed by other individuals who adhere to a subjectively determined or culturally-bound moral theory which does not regard causing harm to others, or at least moral relativists, as wrong. In this sense, it is difficult for a moral relativist to hold that they have a right to exist (and in doing so, formulate their own set of moral values) in the first place. Just as they are unable to argue that slavery, the Holocaust, etc. are ultimately immoral, moral relativists are unable to argue that the discontinuation of their own lives at the hands of another individual (who adheres to a different set of values) would be ultimately immoral, either. Moral relativists could respond by agreeing they have no objective right to live, but the subjective moral codes of most people would prevent them from harming the moral subjectivists anyway. Such a response would be seen as a gamble of varying risk. They could claim instead that it is wrong in the sense of being against their moral code, but what is important here is the behavior of the attacker; there is no necessary reason why their attacker should be swayed by someone else's personal or cultural beliefs. In this sense, it is argued, moral relativists suffer from an inability to defend their own interests, regardless of their own moral code. While this argument may not be compelling, opponents claim it shows some of the inherent shortcomings of the relativist philosophy."

2.  the basic idea of moral relativism is as far as i can see or tell this is the way it seems.

"what I'm feeling now determines what i believe for now,  and you can't tell me i'm wrong or should change because it's what's right for me."

well here is my question.  ok that's what's right for you, but what if what's right for me is telling you that you are wrong?"   who are you to say i can't say that?

here is an analogy that i like.

say you have a house that has 3 rooms.   you live in the city somewhere and you rent out two of your rooms to people.   say the going rate is 400$ a month per room (it's a good sized room and this includes electric water, sewage all that good stuff) so there is you and person A  and person B   for the first three months  persons A and B  both pay their rent on time and the proper amount of 400$   then month 4 comes along and person A pays their rent,  but person B does not ( i know what you are asking,  why is it always person B  why can't it be person A?   well, because i like person A that's why)  so you go up to person B and say hey sucka i need the rent in 3 days or we get a late fee.  person B says,  oh, that sucks,  but i don;t feel like i should pay rent anymore.  I don;t believe i should have to pay rent anymore.   here is the dilemma.  YOU ARE a moral relativist, so  here is my question to you.   is it right or wrong to evict that person because they REFUSE to pay rent.  not because they can't  this is not about ethics, but morality and absolutes.  is that person wrong in breaking their contract with you and not paying rent, and should you throw them out?   

• YES?  ______
• NO?   ______   

please check only one.