Objectivist vs. Relativist

A relativist is not necessarily more tolerant than and objectivist. This is an implied belief. Taken from page 22 of our textbook, "A problem for both types of relativists lies in the IMPLIED belief that relativitism is a more tolerant position than objectivism" So, according to our book and objectivist is no less tolerant that a relativist. What dictates tolerance is the society in which either person lives. Some societies have tolerance as a dominant value in which case that person, whether relativist or objectivist, is more tolerant than there counter-part, which, for the sake of argument, lives in a society which doesn't hold tolerance as dominant value. As stated by our book, "He or She cannot hold that all people should be tolerant, because tolerance cannot be an objective or transcultural value, according to relativism" This means that not all societies view tolerance in the same light, because each society has a different set of morals beliefs.
An objectivist, unlike a relativist/subjectivist, believes that there is a solid right and wrong, moral and immoral. Because of this, there is a stout disagreement between the two camps. Obviously the relativist believes the exact opposite in which there is no define right and wrong, that it is instead based on cultural values and personal views of the world. The relativist believes that a person dictates their morals based on how they were raised and the environment in which they grew up. The objectivist believes that a person is held by a binding set of morals that is also applied to everyone