A critique of moral relativism

I think this statement muddles the issue. A single answer can be reached as long as the morality standards are defined.Standard 1:
Basic Principle - Morality is defined by God.
Morally Good = What God says is Good.
Morally Bad = What God says is Bad.Standard 2:
Basic Principle - Morality is defined by the resulting effects of actions towards other people.
Morally Good = Actions that help people.
Morally Bad = Actions that hurt people.Each standard can be used to objectively define good and bad to reach a single answer.
Perhaps, for the non-God standard, we may not know if people were truly helped or hurt. But that goes for the God standard as well, we may not know if God actually says something is good or bad. Either way, it only seems to depend on if other people (the culture) agree with the principles.Lots of people say Standard 1 (with God) is an "absolute standard" and that standard 2 (without God) is a "relative standard". I think they're both equal. It only depends on how the culture you're around agrees with the basic principles.Both standards can be used to objectively determine if certain acts are definitely moral or immoral. Are niether of the standards relative?Both standards depend on the culture to agree with the basic principle for "good" or "bad" to make any sense. Are both standards relative?Or is "moral relativism" simply an overall-label for any and all moral systems. And once we define any moral system it is then no longer relative?

Yes, but as much as we say:"something is 'wrong' relative to the standards of ancient Greece"wouldn't we also say:"something is 'wrong' relative to the standards of a moral system that attempts to discover a single and definite moral action"No? I guess I just don't see the difference between what you're trying to classify as relative and non-relative.I mean, what's the difference between Divine Command Theory and relative morality?Relative Morality:
"something is 'wrong' relative to the standards of ancient Greece"Divine Command Theory:
"something is 'wrong' relative to the standards of what some people think God is thinking"
or:
"something is 'wrong' relative to the standards of God"
(it doesn't really matter)Why is one relative and the other not?Or are you not so much classifying systems of morality, but more... how people view systems of morality? If that's what you mean, then I see your point. I understand how some people think their system of morality is an absolute single model for all time. Or how some people think morality changes from day to day.

Yes, this is what I was thinking. I agree, Modulous, and I retract all my questions. Or, well, they've already been answered I guess I was just initially confused by how some of the terminology was being used.