Morality IS the codification or idealization of behavior beyond just your particular choices. It is of its very nature a generalization of the principle you are acting upon to all other humans. Noone says, "Well, I think killing is wrong, but for other people on the other side of the planet its perfectly ok."
Actually, that's exactly what the moral relativist says. While killing may not align with their own personal moral code, the relativist recognizes that it does in other parts of the world, or other parts of their own society, and there are no universal truths against which these beliefs can be judged to determine which is objectively correct.
If you are just making a choice based on your own situation and reasoning, why generalize it into a moral principle? You just chose to do that, and that's it. The moment you extrapolate from your choice to a moral principle, you are of necessity transcending your situation and culture to include all humans. At least that's my experience of morality.
I would think that's because most people believe in absolute morality. It's an easy assumption to make, given how we are all raised to believe in certain ideals and principles. Many people also believe the way they were raised by their parents is the only proper way to raise a child.
Can you tell me any moral principle you believe in that DOESN'T extrapolate universally to all humans?
How do you mean "extrapolate universally?" If you mean a moral principle I believe in that I don't think everyone should adhere to, I'd reckon there are plenty, since so many of them are situational. I wouldn't steal food, for example, but then I'm not starving. I wouldn't presume to tell someone who has five mouths to feed that they should adhere to my principles.
Even someone who believes it is wrong to kill animals for food is generalizing that principle beyond just himself. He implicitly idealizes a world were EVERYONE refrains from killing animals for food. Now he may tolerate the existence and practices of meateaters. He may intellectually accept that meateaters have a right to their own beliefs and practice. But that doesn't mean he thinks meateating is just as morally defensible as respecting all life is. Relativism is in this sense self-nullifying because it asserts a contradiction: that what I think is right is right and what I think is wrong is right too. How can anyone honestly have a morality like that? Why not just dispense with morality altogether and say, "I CHOOSE this action for myself. And that's all there is to it."?
It isn't a contradiction, because the central conceit of relativism is that there is no
objective moral value to any action. Therefore, any moral judgment is based on subjective valuation. It's like saying something is "too hot." While this is subjectively true for you, it might not be true for someone else. This is how something exists as true and false at once. Same goes for morality; it's subjective, and therefore its status as good or bad is wholly dependant on the individual.
As to how anyone can have a morality like that, I'm failing to see where the problem lies. Can you give me an example?
Generalized to the realm of values, relativism presents the same dilemma. How can one really believe in a value without believing that value should be true for everyone else?
Who says they don't? I believe that all women should be treated as equals to men, and all races as equal to each other.I believe this should apply across the board. I don't have to believe in some universal principle to hold that belief, nor do I have to accept the mistreatment of women and minorities simply because it's part of another culture's tradition.
I may believe that financial success is the ultimate value of my life, and may intellectually at least concede there are others who have the right not to pursue that goal in life. But won't I always secretly look down on those people, as lazy or weak because they aren't pursuing what I believe to be the ultimate value of life--making lots of money? I think so. When you generalize an action into a value, you are of necessity extending that value beyond just yourself to include everybody else. Cuz really, if its the highest value for you, why SHOULDN'T it be the highest value for everyone else?
Because some people believe money corrupts. Some people believe that pursuing wealth only leads to further pursuit of wealth, and that no satisfaction is achieved because there is always more wealth to pursue. Other people believe that poverty is noble. There are any number of equally-valid moral stances that contradict your own.
So you're saying since relativism admits the subjectivity of moral principles, that they are therefore non-objective and therefore no longer moral principles?
No, and I haven't the foggiest how you arrived at such a dubious non-sequitur.
I'm saying that relativism is the recognition that morality is subjective rather than objective, and as such there are no universal moral truths. I'm not saying that you can't believe in what you believe in, or try to argue the merits of your beliefs. Indeed, I'm not saying that moral values don't have merit, I'm saying that those merits are
subjective, based on your own values and not some universal code against which they can be judged.
For all your talk of objective morality, you've yet to offer even one universal principe. Care to try, since it's the root of your beliefs?