Relativism has taken root in the current world society in the sense that an individual is free to commit a wrong deed and easily get away with it. This is as long as he or she can justify his/her actions (Hinderer, chap. 4). A typical example of this scenario is social tolerance towards acts that were strongly condemned in the past. Incidences of social tolerance include homosexuality, the lenient judicial system, pornography, adultery and even fornication. Ethical relativism on the other hand refutes the existence of moral absolutes. It dictates neither morally wrong nor morally right deeds do exist. This theory finds it easier to link the right and wrong deeds to social norms. According to Hinderer (Chapter 4), relativism does not qualify as a basis of professional practice and as an ethical theory. Ethical relativism undermines the influence of morality as a unifying factor in the society. Ethical relativism does not hold the account of an absolute right or wrong. A right or a wrong can only be established by use of logic, observation, preferences, emotions, experiences and relevant rules. Most cultures if not all perceive vices such as cheating, lying, murder and stealing as evils of the society thus wrong. Whenever an individual goes against such laws then he or she is punished. Moral absolutes such as the Ten Commandments (Christianity) have no changed since (Hinderer, chap. 4). It is interesting to note that none of them depends on social norms yet they are still true. This is to say that laid down rules and doctrines of the various religions find fault in ethical relativism. This theory has also been faulted because considers the right, wrong and the truth as relative. It does not make sense to conclude that certain things are right on the basis of a school of thought by a group of people. A typical example of this scenario was the slave trade where by as much as it was acceptable in the past, the world today does not entertain it. In general, relativism does not provide for absolute ethics. Ethical relativism on the other hand undermines the existence of God according to the various religious systems in the world (Wear, Bono and McEvoy, 10). It should also be understood that this theory is faulted simply because ethical standards and norms keep changing with time. Relativism becomes false on the basis of an individual’s affiliation to a particular religious system. Personally, it is false since it does not recognize absolute ethical values. On the contrary it is true that many people accept this theory simply because it is not as strict as long as an individual or a group of people can justify a deed, then it is right. This theory offers a comfort zone that is relatively free of condemnation thus an ever increasing following. According to Hinderer (chap. 5), speciesism can be defined as a discriminative gesture by human beings against other species. It can also be defined as the act of putting human beings under privileges and advantages as opposed to animals. As a result, different species have different rights and values. Peter Singer’s arguments, with respect to whether our treatment of animals is speciesist or not, is valid. The fact that animals too share similar moral status with human means that they should be treated right without discrimination. Cruelty spans from factory farming all the way to laboratory tests carried out using animals.