A critique of moral relativism

No, moral relativism is not true. But then, it is not false either. "Moral relativism" is a good descriptive term for the nature of morality. But it's a term with an evolving meaning, so it's a bit too simplistic to pose it as a true/false issue. But what does that mean, and from whence does the framework arise. It seems to me that if there can be said to be a moral framework, then that framework is itself an evolving cultural construct. You are a creature of your culture, and some of the cultural assumptions of your culture are so deeply ingrained that you see them as absolutes.

That (particularly the "always" seems rather too strong. Many traffic laws are simply pragmatic. There's no moral principle involved in whether we should drive on the left side of the road or the right side of the road. But it is important that everyone make the same choice so as to reduce the head-on collisions. And it's not just traffic laws. Many laws actually have a pragmatic basis. But that still does not make them completely arbitrary. Going back to the traffic laws, some nations have them to require driving on the right, and some on the left. But I don't know of any that allows everybody to decide for themselves. Moral relativists usually say that morality is culturally relative, not individually relative.Morality is a system of social/cultural agreements that help to organize a society and reduce frictions between individuals.

I think you are using "moral" rather more broadly than I would. I think you are using it too broadly (but that's not a moral point).We have goals, preferences, desires, etc. Acting in ways to meet these goals can be rational, or can be pragmatic. But I wouldn't say that it is always a moral issue. In a representative democracy, the law makers are supposed to be representing the interests of their constituents. They sometime vote in ways that is not in accordance with their own opinions.