Is Ethical Pluralism Morally Wrong?

According ethical conventionalism, what is moral correct is based on the values of that society. What is right is what the group approved of, and what is wrong is what the group condemns. It was defended by anthropologists; their defense was centered around four arguments. The arguments were sheer-diversity, group survival, group-authority and tolerance. Ruth Benedict was the primary proponent of ethical conventionalism. He said that we recognize that morality differs in every society, and is a convenient term for socially approved habits. One of the strengths of ethical conventionalism is we able to know that what we think is right is not necessarily wrong. The weakness is all groups of life doesn’t agree. For example, in Africa there are some society believe in breast ironing young teenagers. That’s not ok on our side of the world, but it’s what they believe is right.
It states that some society customs are morally unacceptable. Pluralism recognizes that moral judgements of societies, but rejects ethical conventionalism that reduces moral values to customs. Stuart Hampshire (1914 – 2004) was an ethical pluralist who argued that polygamy is at least sometimes morally acceptable. He didn’t believe that all cases of polygamy were permissible because they give the women their equal rights. They also can include child abuse. In its defense, pluralist has two arguments; multiple goods and emphases, and self-fulfillment argument. A strength of pluralism is that it addresses other values and beliefs of others groups. A weakness is that it is difficult to