Thus I will argue for the existence of an objective universal standard of morality independent of human culture.
Which seems to be stronger in Law and in Humanities and the Social Sciences. There are various ways to actually seek the necessary elements of a good human life. Everyone without exception believes his own native customs, and the religion he was brought up in, to be the best.
The Kantinisen sense of duty is discredited in the same way, on account of everyone's sense of duty being different. This set of principles varies from culture to culture, and it is extremely rare, if not totally impossible, to find a moral principle that is followed by all cultures.
Then how can a society punish a person for not following their moral standards? Moreover, Moody-Adamsamong others, has argued that cultures are not integrated wholes that could determine uni-directionally the beliefs and experiences of their members; they are porous, riddled with inconsistencies and amenable to change.
At the same time, every living individual in the world makes up an umbrella society or community that constructs the present-day society. There will always be exceptions to the rules.
While physical laws are universally accepted, morals are objective depending on where someone lives or who they grew up around. The historicist principle not only organizes, like an invisible hand, the work of the cultural sciences Geisteswissenschaftenbut also permeates everyday thinking.
The key difficulty facing conceptual relativism is that of formulating the position in a coherent but non-trivial manner.