Editing Moral relativism (section)

===Normative===
Normative moral relativists believe not only the meta-ethical thesis, but that it has normative implications on what we ought to do. Normative moral relativists argue that meta-ethical relativism implies that we ''ought'' to tolerate the behavior of others even when it runs counter to our personal or cultural moral standards. Most philosophers do not agree, partially because of the challenges of arriving at an "ought" from relativistic premises.<ref name="Stanford">{{cite book|url=https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/moral-relativism/|title=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy|first=Chris|last=Gowans|chapter=Moral Relativism |editor-first=Edward N.|editor-last=Zalta|date=15 October 2017|publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University|via=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy}}</ref> Meta-ethical relativism seems to eliminate the normative relativist's ability to make prescriptive claims. In other words, normative relativism may find it difficult to make a statement like "we think it is moral to tolerate behaviour" without always adding "other people think ''intolerance'' of certain behaviours is moral".<ref>{{Cite web|title=Tolerance is more than putting up with things – it's a moral virtue|url=http://theconversation.com/tolerance-is-more-than-putting-up-with-things-its-a-moral-virtue-31507|last=Witenberg|first=Rivka T.|website=The Conversation|date=16 September 2014 |language=en|access-date=2020-05-28}}</ref> Some philosophers even argue that intolerance is, to some degree, important. As [[Russell Blackford]] puts it, "we need not adopt a quietism about moral traditions that cause hardship and suffering. Nor need we passively accept the moral norms of our own respective societies, to the extent that they are ineffective or counterproductive or simply unnecessary".<ref>at the end of his review at http://jetpress.org/v21/blackford3.htm</ref> That is, it is perfectly reasonable (and practical) for a person or group to defend their subjective values against others, even if there is no universal prescription or morality. We can also criticize other cultures for failing to pursue even ''their own goals'' effectively.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Gowans |first=Chris |date=2004-02-19 |title=Moral Relativism |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/moral-relativism/#RelTol}}</ref>

The moral relativists may also still try to make sense of non-universal statements like "in this country, it is wrong to do X" or even "to me, it is right to do Y".<ref name="Stanford"/>

[[Moral universalist]]s argue further that their system often ''does'' justify tolerance, and that disagreement with moral systems does not always demand interference, and certainly not aggressive interference.<ref name="Stanford"/> For example, the [[utilitarian]] might call another society's practice 'ignorant' or 'less moral', but there would still be much debate about courses of action (e.g. whether to focus on providing better education, or technology, etc.).<ref>{{Cite web |title=Introduction to Utilitarianism – Utilitarianism.net |url=https://www.utilitarianism.net/introduction-to-utilitarianism |access-date=2022-04-14 |website=Utilitarianism |language=en-US}}</ref>