The area of application for the relative truth is completely a matter of individual belief and may not apply to anything else further. It can be one’s perception or a view of a general significance to a general situation.
The idea of relative truth is also subjected to a myriad criticism. The first great critic of relativism was Plato himself. He criticized the views of “Sophist Protagoras” in his book ‘Thaetetus’. Relativism largely destroys distinction between the truth and the belief. With relative truth, the problem of negation also arises; if everyone differs with their respective belief then no one comes to any common solution or agreement. Under these circumstances, learning becomes vague and one moves away from truth.
According to Hilary Putnam, relativism makes it almost impossible to accept that one is wrong or one can commit an error. If there is an absence of complete truth beyond the belief of an individual, then an individual would not be able to able to uphold their own beliefs into an error, false or mistake. Perceptional difference is essential but in some places acceptance of negation is equally demanding. This is the area which is completely nullified when it comes to relative truth and there lies the greatest limitation of the theory.
Moral relativism is an umbrella term that encompasses various views and arguments possessed by people from different cultures. Moral relativism is again of several kinds namely: Descriptive Relativism, Meta-ethical Relativism and Normative Relativism. Moral relativism sometimes describes the positive or descriptive positioning of the existence of right course of deed under the circumstance when the fact gathered, and the similar consequence probably seems to arise. This concept of Moral Relativism falls under the category of Descriptive Relativism.
The next contention about the idea is the ‘semantic’ and the ‘epistemic’, positioning that all moral