Lots on the WWW about it:
http://www.google.ca/search?q=moral+relativism+definition&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=com.mandriva:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
FROM THE STANFORD ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PHILOSOPHY
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/ Moral Relativism
First published Thu Feb 19, 2004; substantive revision Tue Dec 9, 2008
Moral relativism has the unusual distinction--both within philosophy and outside it--of being attributed to others, almost always as a criticism far more often than it is explicitly professed by anyone. Nonetheless, moral relativism is a standard topic in meta-ethics, and there are contemporary philosophers who defend forms of it: The most prominent are Gilbert Harman and David B. Wong.
The term ‘moral relativism’ is understood in a variety of ways. Most often it is associated with an empirical thesis that there are deep and widespread moral disagreements and a meta-ethical thesis that the truth or justification of moral judgments is not absolute, but relative to some group of persons. Sometimes ‘moral relativism’ is connected with a normative position about how we ought to think about or act towards those with whom we morally disagree, most commonly that we should tolerate them.
