Beckwith's essay A Critique of Moral Relativism he states that "moral relativists argue there is no absolute right and wrong, but that moral rules are personal preferences or the result of one's cultural, sexual, or ethnic orientation". The second argument that supposedly defends the relativist's opinion that there are no objective moral norms is tolerance and how relativism promotes open-mindedness. Beckwith clearly disagrees with relativists and points out four main problems with the argument that moral norms don't exist. .
Beckwith begins with explaining relativist's argument that cultures disagree on moral issues including war, abortion, and sexual practices, and that one culture is in no place to judge another. He then points out, if two individuals disagree on whether people should be treated equally and with fairness that is not reason enough to believe that equality and fairness are not objective moral values. Beckwith then uses Nazi Germany as an example to discredit the relativist's theory. To take that thought further, if relativism was in fact the best way to deal with other cultures and their countries laws, or rules of engagement during a conflict, there would be no need for the United Nations or the Geneva Convention. And the massacre of civilians in Homs ordered by the people's dictator may have gone unopposed. .
"Disagreement counts against relativism" is Beckwith's second focus. The idea that relativists believe a disagreement validates their view on there not being a truth or objective moral norms contradicts the relativist. The relativist would argue there is no truth or norms, yet is attempting to state a truth and set a norm by arguing the truth is there is no truth, and the norm is there are no moral norms. A relativist would say when two people disagree it proves there is no truth but when an individual disagrees with that specific statement, according to relativist's beliefs, that disagreement invalidates the relativist's opinion making the idea of there not being a truth untrue.