Moral relativism is widely taught at universities across the world. The message is that there is no such thing as right and wrong, good and bad. Every view is as good as another. You can make up your reality and do as you please. This is misleading as the distinction is not made between resolving the practical conflicts of life and metaphysical problems over what type of existence morals have. Instead of standing up to the problem, relativists disingenuously replace it with pontificating over whether morals are absolute or relative, real, reliable, good principles of action or non-existential mental fabrications. This form of moral relativism is clearly open to be used by dishonest individuals as a smokescreen to hide their manipulative intentions and harmful behavior.
It is obviously untrue that all moral values are equal and none is better than the other as some cultures are more successful than others and this is often stronger related to their moral values. Moral values of emphasizing kindness, compassion and non-harmfulness are clearly superior as they lead to superior results. If all moral values are held to be equally true then it would be impossible to reach meaningful concluding. For example, we could not say that present-day Germany is a better society than Nazi Germany was. Clear cut rights and wrongs born of well-proven experience and consideration towards others are necessary for social harmony and enterprise. Without this, the destructiveness of expedient individuals would have no restraining influence. Different cultures have different morals but this is not sufficient ground to assume that arbitrary moral relativism is the universal basis for behavior as these cultures do not accept arbitrary behavior is correct. Their moral systems are fixed and any violation of them is seen to be wrong.
The purpose of morality is to guide and regulate individual and social behavior. It is essential to distinguish between right and wrong in any situation as misconceptions decisions lead to painful results. On a metaphysical level no moral system has an objectively established truth or superiority but on a practical level good and bad actions can easily be distinguished as they lead, respectably, to good results (amelioration of suffering) and bad results (intensification of suffering).
Although right and wrong are not absolutes, you are not free to make up your own reality and do as you please since your actions have consequences and if they are painful this can not be construed as freedom. You also can not make up your own reality as you can not free yourself of your social conditioning. You depend on your condition to shape your reality. If you were separated from your conditioning, you would not be able to make sense of your life. You can not abandon important beliefs without losing many other beliefs as well, and also some ability to understand experience. As long as you are under the control of your condition, you are not free. Whatever you do triggers a chain of uncontrollable consequences. If you shift your stance, everything else adjusts to this to maintain a dynamic balance relative to your new position. This is what relativism means. It does not mean that as you shift your stance everything else remains static so you can exploit it from a different angle. It adjusts to meet you face to face and there is no way of wriggling out of this. Expedient actions never work. In the long-term everything balances out. Your consequences are perfectly matched and balanced to your actions and whichever way you turn, they are waiting to greet you with open arms. Finally, there is an unacceptably high level of disappointment, frustration and suffering in the world which often grows steadily with age. If it were possible to make up our own reality, we would certainly make up something else.
The way you think about and relate to an object or situation shapes the way you and others see it and this connects you with it. You feel that by moving your stance you can take the good and avoid the bad as it pleases you with no responsibility or indebtedness to others as though this is your inalienable right. But your actions to take the good aspects and give the bad to others deepen this connection with the object or situation and this creates a broad highway for the unwanted consequences of your actions to ineluctably return to their legitimate, if unknowing, owner. You can not stop these unpleasant returns from returning and because you are blissfully unaware of this connection you will be permanently surprised and wounded by their unwelcome appearance in your life. The results of your actions are your inheritance and that of your heirs who have been unwittingly drawn into your sphere of influence. They will reverberate through their lives for generations to come. When you move on to your next life, your results will be eagerly waiting to greet you, like long-lost family.
These ideas of yours that you have the right to do exactly as you please are so naïve and puerile they are pathetic. One hard knows whatever to laugh with amazement or weep with compassion.
Expedient moral relativism is the extreme incoherence of those who refuse to acknowledge the moral certainty that their actions have uncontrollable consequences and deny the necessity of a shared morality established on negotiation and consensus. It ignores the fact that we should do to others as we would like them to do to us and that they most probably will. It is weak, insipid and vacant. The problems of defending and dealing with unacceptable behavior are never raised. It is trite to say everything is relative, you have your way and I have mine. It is silly, impractical and irresponsible as whatever led to the disaggregation has not been acknowledged and the disagreement has not been resolved. Disagreements are real and must be deal with. Both parties take them seriously and, if left unresolved, they can lead to serious consequences. Expedient moral relativism tries to avoid the conflict and wish it away by ignoring it and pretending it is actually a metaphysical problem about whether or not morality exists. By confusing a practical problem with a metaphysical issue the problem is compounded. This is completely unhelpful as the conflict is still there and is deepening. Resolving the conflict is a practical problem. It has to be dealt with using level-headed, practical examination of purposes, discussion and negotiation. It has nothing to do with establishing the ontological status of morality. It has everything to do with working out a way to live and this is well within the reach of any fair, reasonable human being who has the will to make things work.