How can ethics being subjective and relative be justified?

This is a wide question, but I think that the answer to your question is hidden in the question itself.

People who are familiar with relativistic ethics at both individual and cultural levels think impossible, unnecessary or undesirable to justify the moral system.

If the moral code is relative, it is neither absolute correctness nor false, and everything is reasonable only within the proper reference point.

Then they choose a different dilemma - meaning that it is reasonable within the range of the appropriate reference point. In general, they claim that this is a problem that has always existed in ethics. Usually this is done by using sociological or biological interpretation as a correct understanding of morality.

Therefore, the only reason they will accept what you usually get is internal (not external)

A philosopher (or perhaps he does not want to be called at the end of his career) accepts this view by Richard Rorty. Once, he was the president of APA. Imagining that we are fighting cornerstone, he believes that we are just cheating oneself

Several other famous philosophers did not agree. James Rachel presents a classic attempt to counter this view in the modern era in a section entitled "Ethical Relativism".

A fairly general discussion follows the same process as you, but may fix problems that moral relativism can not condemn. For example, Rachel pointed out that moral relativism can not condemn the existence of one's culture or the existence of culture - nor can they condemn these murders or slaughter.

Some of your answers suggest a natural attitude towards morality. In this view, moral relativism failed. Because there is a natural moral order in the universe. And we are a kind of creature given rationality.

Defining a moral subject is a complex task as well as the problems encountered by the ethical dilemma. Morality is often called "moral philosophy" and seeks answers to ethical questions such as legitimate and ethical ones. Other ethics definitions include meta ethics. Meta ethics examines what we call "ethical essence" itself and certain moral terms such as "good and evil". Normative ethics focuses on what we have to do (Banks, 2006, pp. 4-5). - The famous Greek philosopher Aristotle believes morality is common sense. In fact, he taught virtue and morality, practiced, and firmly led virtue was an action learned through practice. According to Aristotle, "The ultimate value of life depends not only on survival, but also on the power of consciousness and thought" (Irwin, 1988, p. 702). Obviously, there are many explanations for analyzing ethical behavior of people

Morality morality is a study of moral and moral choice - whether specific behavior is good or bad, and whether that behavior is rational - or not. If a decision can promote the interests of others and avoid harm, such a decision is moral if it helps to keep someone's basic self-worth and dignity, or just its fairness It is legitimate. Ethics provides a code of conduct to manage all members of a particular group.

Application ethics is related to modern ethics issues. Let's see this as the basis of ethical investigation. One of the problems in applied ethics is whether abortion is rational and how reasonable it is. This is a problem on the job site. But once you reach an abstract level you will find yourself doing normative ethics. An example of a moral principle is the golden rule, not paying attention to some of the annoying moral dilemmas that society is currently focusing on, "to do what you do as others do" It is a general principle. The idea is that normative principles should clarify the application of the problem - learning Utilitarian should, for example, provide a framework for people to use for the theory of climate change.