1. Are You Really a Moral Relativist?
If two people disagree about the morality of a certain issue, does it then follow that there is no truthful, or “right” answer?
For example, if we were to disagree on the question of whether the earth is round, our disagreement would certainly not be proof that the earth has no shape.
Likewise, a skinhead (neo-Nazi) and I may disagree on the questions of whether we should treat people equally is certainly not sufficient reason to conclude that equality is not an objective moral value, is it?

2. Despite the existence of moral disagreement, isn’t it still possible that an individual or an entire culture, such as Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany, or India (where the trade is tolerated) are simply mistaken?
Or should we not judge by any objective standard of right and wrong what happened in Europe between , when 6,000,000 Jews and 4,000,000 others were gassed, burned alive or simply shot by members of the SS
Should we not judge by any objective standard when 10 year old girls are sold into sexual slavery

3. So what?
If the mere fact of disagreement is sufficient to conclude that objective norms do not exist, then we are forced to acknowledge that there is no objectively correct position on issues such as:
Slavery
Genocide
Child molestation or child prostitution

4. Because…for the slave owner, the genocidal maniac, and the sexual predator clearly have an opinion that differs from the one held by those of us who condemn their actions!
So…are you really a moral relativist?